Oral
Answers to
Questions

CABINET OFFICE

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Leaving the EU: Contingency Planning

Colin Clark: What discussions his Department is having with stakeholders on contingency planning for the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

David Lidington: The Government’s policy is for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union with a negotiated deal. Individual Departments are responsible for briefing businesses and other interested parties about contingency planning for all eventualities, and the Cabinet Office is co-ordinating contingency planning across Whitehall.

Colin Clark: Will my right hon. Friend give details of which Departments have been allocated moneys for no-deal preparation, how much, and the spending timescales?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced yesterday details of a £2 billion planned spend for 2019-20. These moneys would be available for either a no-deal or a deal scenario. The largest recipient Departments are the Home Office, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for International Trade.

Vernon Coaker: In the event of no deal, we read in the press that the Government are going to inform the public about what they should do to prepare for it. Will the Minister outline for us what exactly the Government will say to the public of this country about how they should prepare for no deal?

David Lidington: As I said in my earlier response, it will be for the Secretary of State in each Department to determine what forms of communication are necessary to businesses or the wider public. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the message that we get back again and again from the general public is that they want Members of Parliament from both sides of the House to get on and agree the deal that is on the table.

Antoinette Sandbach: With reports of DEFRA making contingency plans to slaughter a large amount of livestock, what reassurance can be given to livestock breeders in my constituency looking at a no-deal Brexit?

David Lidington: I think it unavoidable that, given the World Trade Organisation’s standard tariffs for livestock trade and the position of third countries in relation to the EU’s legal requirement for phytosanitary checks and inspections, there will be difficulties for our livestock exporters in the event of no deal. That is another reason for the House to agree the deal that is available.

Jo Platt: After last week’s shambles, we are now 100 days away from our scheduled departure from the EU without having voted on any deal in the House. We are now staring at a cliff-edge no-deal exit, which would be damaging not only for our economy, but potentially for our national security. In the event of no deal, what assurances can the Minister provide the House that the Government have discussed with stakeholders our continued security partnership with the EU, including on cyber-related matters?

David Lidington: The Home Office and other Departments with the responsibilities for security interests are in constant touch with the police and other relevant agencies about those matters. I say to the hon. Lady, as I have said to others in the House, that what is needed is for every Member in the House to take seriously his or her responsibility and not to keep ducking the question—[Interruption.] The challenge that she has to answer is that if she does not like the deal that has been negotiated with the 27 Governments of the EU, what is her alternative and that which the Opposition are proposing?

Civil Service Relocation

Gary Streeter: What steps his Department is taking to move civil service jobs out of London as part of the Government’s industrial strategy.

Oliver Dowden: We are committed to supporting economic growth across the United Kingdom. We have established the Places for Growth programme to relocate civil service roles into the regions and nations. That creates a presumption that newly created public bodies will be located outside London.

Gary Streeter: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I invite him or the Secretary of State to come to Plymouth with me early in 2019 to see for themselves how digital connectivity has transformed our city? It is not just a great place to live, as it has always been, but now a great place to work and run a business. Would it not be very good for the Government to have a Government hub there?

Oliver Dowden: I know, thanks to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, that Plymouth is a great place to work and do business. A number of potential hub locations are under active consideration. I would of course be delighted to meet a delegation from Plymouth, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster intends to visit Plymouth shortly.

Chris Evans: When the Minister is looking to relocate civil service jobs outside London, will he look at post-industrial areas, which traditionally have high levels of unemployment, as a way to stimulate the jobs market?

Oliver Dowden: That is precisely the idea behind the Places for Growth strategy, which is to ensure Government activity benefits all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why we have created hubs across the United Kingdom—for example, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, Leeds, Birmingham and Cardiff, to name just a few.

David Duguid: The Minister will be aware—at least, I hope he is aware—of the success of the Oil and Gas Authority being based in Aberdeen, as was presented in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee yesterday by both our right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth and the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands from the Scottish Government. Does the Minister agree that moving civil service jobs out of London using that model has the potential to boost local economic growth across the UK?

Oliver Dowden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That forms a core part of the Government’s industrial strategy. As I have said, we have already created hubs in both Edinburgh and Glasgow, but I am open to all representations for further relocations of Government activity.

Jamie Stone: Mr Speaker, you would be surprised if I did not mention the great benefits in this of the far north of Scotland: a lovely environment, splendid education and cheap housing and accommodation. Positioning civil service jobs in the north of Scotland, alongside Scottish civil service jobs, would be good for the relationship between Scotland and London, and it would help strengthen the Union.

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Gentleman makes the case exceptionally well. That is precisely why we are ensuring that Government jobs are located in all parts—all nations—of our United Kingdom. I know that there is already considerable space activity in his constituency.

Real Living Wage

Carol Monaghan: If he will make it his policy to introduce the real living wage across all Government Departments and to seek accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation.

Oliver Dowden: We are addressing this issue through the application of the statutory national minimum wage and the national living wage. This is based on the advice of the Low Pay Commission. From April, the national living wage will rise again—from £7.83 to £8.21 per hour—handing a full-time worker a further £690 annual pay rise.

Carol Monaghan: This Government like to talk about employment levels, but they stay silent on the fact that many people are now struggling with in-work poverty,  which is rising among working parents in particular. Does this Minister believe that his kid-on living wage is more effective at tackling in-work poverty than the real living wage promoted by the Living Wage Foundation?

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: we do continue to talk about employment, because 2 million jobs have been created under this Government. On the point about the national living wage, we were of course the first Government actually to introduce a national living wage. The aim is that that will rise to 60% of median income by 2020, and it is actually rising faster than the real living wage.

Tommy Sheppard: Everyone in the country knows that the Government’s pretendy living wage is not the same as the real living wage. It pays an awful lot less, and it excludes millions of younger workers. At this season of good will, will the Government not commit to making it their policy next year to seek accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation and show leadership in the country in taking on low pay?

Oliver Dowden: I think the hon. Gentleman is a little dismissive of the national living wage, which, since it was introduced, has led to a pay rise for people on the lowest incomes of almost £3,000 a year. It is rising faster than his proposal, and it will reach 60% of median income by 2020. Post that, we will look again at further increases.

Leaving the EU: Civil Service Capacity

Afzal Khan: What recent assessment he has made of the capacity of the civil service to manage additional responsibilities arising from the UK leaving the EU.

Rosie Duffield: What recent assessment he has made of the capacity of the civil service to manage additional responsibilities arising from the UK leaving the EU.

Brandon Lewis: The Government are equipping themselves with the right people and the right skills for the UK to exit the European Union successfully. Almost 11,000 people are now working on EU exit-related policy and programmes across the Government, and the workforce plans will continue to be reviewed to ensure that our civil service can respond to emerging capacity and capability requirements.

Afzal Khan: The National Audit Office reports that the additional staff needed to work at UK borders after Brexit may not be in place by March 2019. Will the Minister explain why, almost 29 months since the EU referendum, the Government have not got their act together?

Brandon Lewis: All reports of the National Audit Office are obviously interesting, but I have absolute confidence in the words of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is very confident that the Border Force will be ready—as am I, from my previous experience in that Department—for any eventuality of Brexit.

Rosie Duffield: We are hearing on the news today that the Government are preparing for every extreme eventuality and possible consequence of Brexit. Which promised or commissioned services are already not being delivered because of the thousands of civil servants transferred to EU work and preparation for the various Brexit outcomes?

Brandon Lewis: Departments are continually looking at and reviewing workforce plans, reprioritising and assessing changing needs. We have the beauty of having a fantastic civil service, with the extra funding that the Treasury has put in to make sure that we are able to get the civil service in place at this point, to continue to deliver on the important Government domestic agenda, while ensuring that we leave the EU in an orderly and sensible fashion.

Oliver Heald: In the field of justice, we have been lucky to enjoy very good civil, mutual judicial co-operation across Europe. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, are there plans in place, and are there the civil servants, for example, to rejoin the Hague conventions in place of the regulations in Europe and so on, to ensure that we have a smooth legal transition?

John Bercow: There is something wrong with the microphone. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be fully heard, and that is unsatisfactory, but I am sure it will be put right.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. and learned Friend asks an important question. We are now focusing on making sure that we get the deal we want negotiated with the EU—that is our top priority—but it is right that we prepare for every eventuality. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice is working with partners around Europe to ensure that, but the best thing we can do in this Parliament to ensure that we have a smooth and orderly Brexit, including for the justice system and security, is to support the Prime Minister’s deal when we vote on it in January.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Prime Minister said that no deal need not be the end of the world and that Britain would be fully prepared in that eventuality? With this ramping up and extra investment, will our civil service have the resources it needs to be ready and deliver on time?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is right that, with just over three months to go before we exit the EU, we need to accelerate and intensify these preparations. I am confident that the civil service is well equipped to deal with that, but of course our focus and our key priority is to get the right deal with EU and one that we can pass that through this House in January.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister liaise with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to ensure that civil servants, both there and in the Department for Transport, speedily come to a conclusion on air passenger duty and corporation tax, thereby giving a considerable boost to the Northern Ireland economy?

Brandon Lewis: My colleagues in the Cabinet Office and in the Department for Transport are working together to ensure that everything is as smooth as it can be.   However, I would reiterate that the best way to have a smooth solution to all this is to support the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister is putting before this House.

Voter ID Pilots

Helen Goodman: What progress his Department has made on further voter ID pilots.

Julia Lopez: Whether the Government plans to conduct further voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew Rosindell: Whether the Government plans to conduct further voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

Chloe Smith: The British public deserve to have confidence in our democracy. A diverse range of local authorities have confirmed that they will be taking part in voter ID and postal vote pilots for the 2019 local elections. The pilots will provide further insights into ensuring the security of the voting process.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful for that answer. Bishop Auckland has the lowest rate of passport ownership in the entire country. Does not the Minister understand that expensive forms of voter ID will exclude thousands of people from exercising their democratic right to vote?

Chloe Smith: Yes, I do; so the design of the pilots acknowledges that and makes sure that a free-of-charge alternative will be available.

Julia Lopez: My previous experience as a Tower Hamlets councillor highlighted to me the significant vulnerability of poorer, more diverse communities to electoral fraud. How can my hon. Friend improve democratic education across all communities so that we can make the electoral system more robust?

Chloe Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing her experience and her voice to this debate; it is very important that we hear that. I also thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who also represents Tower Hamlets, for his cross-party support for this policy. It shows how important that is. It is essential that electors are aware that their voice is theirs alone. That message was promoted through various channels in May this year, including work with the Electoral Commission, Crimestoppers and the police, and we will do more to spread that message.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Minister assure the House that those who do not have the documentation she requires will not be disenfranchised by the new policy?

Chloe Smith: Yes, I am very happy to repeat that reassurance. When somebody does not have the correct form of ID, local authorities will provide an alternative method free of charge. On top of that, we are working closely with a range of charities and civil society organisations so that everyone who is registered to vote has the opportunity to do so.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Minister not aware that ID is linked to knowing where the children of our country are: are they in school; are they vulnerable? Those in her party stopped us having that identification. Many children are at risk because of their actions on ID.

Chloe Smith: The hon. Gentleman has advanced that argument over many years in many different formats. I regret to say I am not entirely clear if I follow him this morning, but I would be very happy to have a further conversation with him if there is an important point there.

Angela Crawley: 

John Bercow: I say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), if he is listening, that I think what the Minister was saying, in a very polite and roundabout way, is that she has not got the foggiest idea what he is on about. No doubt, with some clarifications, she will be perfectly clear on what he is talking about. I thought I knew what he was talking about.

Chloe Smith: Yes, Mr Speaker. To answer the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), she will know very well that the election manifesto on which this party and Government were elected excluded votes at 16. It is also a little sad if she does not see the merits, in their own right, of ensuring integrity in our voting processes. That means tackling fraud.

Chris Matheson: This year’s voter ID pilots cost the taxpayer £1.7 million and the only discernible effect was that several hundred people were prevented from voting. The Minister is refusing to publish details of the budget for next year’s voter ID pilots. Why is she keeping that information secret, and what has she got to hide?

Chloe Smith: There is nothing to hide. I have been extremely clear about what the costs may be. As soon as I have information about the design of the pilots, I will be happy to share it with the House. Indeed, I have undertaken to do so through the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The hon. Gentleman needs to be concerned about how his party says one thing and does another. The Labour party uses voter ID in its own meetings. If it is good enough for them, why is it not good enough for the country?

John Bercow: I call Giles Watling. Not here. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Well, I hope the fella is not indisposed. We look forward to seeing him again. I call Michael Fabricant.

Michael Fabricant: I’m here!

John Bercow: Nobody doubted it for a moment. We always expect the hon. Gentleman to be here, and we can spot him a mile off.

Cyber-security

Michael Fabricant: What steps his Department is taking to help improve the cyber-security of public and private sector organisations; and if he will make a statement.

David Lidington: Our world-leading national cyber-security strategy, which is supported by nearly £2 billion of investment, sets out measures  to defend our people, businesses and infrastructure, to deter our adversaries and to develop the skills and capabilities this country needs.

Michael Fabricant: With major data breaches at the Marriott hotel group and British Airways, with which  I hope to be flying tomorrow—[Interruption] Well, I hope so, anyway—what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that private corporations maintain security for their customers?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is spot on in his comments. That is why the National Cyber Security Centre has designed new materials aimed at members of company boards. The Cabinet Office will be launching them, along with the NCSC, in the new year.

Chris Elmore: The Minister will be aware that before the summer recess The Daily Telegraph reported that data breaches on gaining passes to Government buildings, including the Cabinet Office, were made available to the public because of the use of open shared drives that had been condemned six months previously. Can the Minister give a reassurance that that simply will not happen again?

David Lidington: Clearly, any breach of data security is to be regretted, and we have a system whereby we learn from those experiences. We also need to be aware that both criminal gangs and hostile state actors are always seeking innovative new ways to penetrate our defences, and the NCSC is our key source of expertise in combatting that threat.

Topical Questions

Paul Girvan: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Lidington: Today, I am publishing the Government’s “State of the Estate” report, which shows that we have successfully cut the size of the Government estate by more than a third since 2010, saving £760 million in running costs. As well as saving money, we are improving the environmental performance of Government buildings, with emissions having been cut by almost 40% since 2009-10.

Paul Girvan: What engagement has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Office over the money required to deal with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit, and what requirement has there been in respect of the allocation of moneys to the Northern Ireland Government?

David Lidington: Consequential sums will flow to the Northern Ireland civil service as a result of the Treasury’s announcement yesterday. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is closely involved in all Government discussions about contingency planning, and I have invited representatives of the Northern Ireland civil  service to a meeting with UK Ministers later today where they will have the opportunity to put Northern Ireland’s case directly.

James Cartlidge: On no-deal planning, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about the contingency of our ending up on the WTO’s default tariff schedule, particularly in terms of the potential impact on farming and industry?

David Lidington: I discuss these matters regularly with both the Secretaries of State my hon. Friend alluded to. I am afraid that there is no getting away from the fact that going to WTO tariffs would impose very considerable additional costs upon our dairy, meat and livestock exports, and upon our vehicle manufacturers. That is another reason why the House should back the deal on the table and not let us be sucked into the damage that a no-deal exit would bring.

Jon Trickett: Season’s greetings to you, Mr Speaker, everybody in the House and all our staff.
Yesterday’s Cabinet meeting appears to have decided to abandon all non-essential Government business and reveals an Administration in an advanced state of decay. Will the Minister now tell the House which Government functions he regards as non-essential and is now putting into deep freeze?

David Lidington: We have taken no decisions to put anything into deep freeze. We are engaged in prudent contingency planning so that we are prepared for all eventualities. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman yet again has ducked the opportunity to say what the Opposition’s preferred outcome is, if they object to the deal on the table.

Andrea Jenkyns: The 29 March will be nearly three years since the British people decided to leave the EU in the referendum, and there are fears that the article 50 process will be drawn out or cancelled. In that context, does my right hon. Friend agree that democracy delayed is democracy denied?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not have been clearer about both our exit from the EU and the date we will leave. It is important that we leave but do so in a way that protects jobs, investment and living standards in this country. That is why this House has the responsibility to agree to a deal and not go into a no-deal exit.

Bambos Charalambous: The National Audit Office report on the British Army recruiting partnership is heavily critical of Capita’s role. It takes up to 321 days to complete the Army recruitment process, and Capita is being paid an extra £182 million, despite missing the British Army’s targets every year since 2013. Considering Capita’s failures with contracts such as the NHS cervical cancer screening programme and NHS England’s primary care support services, will the Minister stop rewarding failure and cease awarding contracts to Capita?

Oliver Dowden: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of Capita’s Army recruitment contract. I can tell him that we have a plan to address those challenges. We are working on a manning campaign, and we are in close contact with the chief executive of Capita to deal with precisely that issue.

Derek Thomas: It is right that we try to ensure that the voting system is as fair as possible. What work is the Minister doing to improve the current system, and does she agree that a close  link between constituents and their representatives is important?

Chloe Smith: Yes, I agree that the link with constituencies is extremely important, and, as my hon. Friend will know, we are committed to keeping the first-past-the-post system for that reason.

Preet Kaur Gill: Thirty-five years ago, in a unanimous five-nil judgment, the Law Lords ruled that Sikhs were an ethnic group and protected from discrimination. However, the results of the Prime Minister’s race disparity audit contained no data whatsoever relating to Sikhs. The Office for National Statistics only requires public bodies to collect and monitor data relating to ethnic groups specified in the census, and the Government’s White Paper fails to include a Sikh ethnic tick-box. Will the Minister commit herself to meeting officers of the all-party parliamentary group on UK Sikhs and to the inclusion of a Sikh ethnic tick-box in the Census Order, in order to bring an end to decades of discrimination against the Sikh community?

Chloe Smith: I shall be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her colleagues. I know that the independent Office for National Statistics, whose decisions these are, has written to the APPG in some detail, and I know that the ONS will also listen carefully to the hon. Lady’s question and endeavour to answer it.

Greg Hands: Are the Government still committed to abolishing the insidious 15-year rule that applies to British expats voting in  UK elections?

Chloe Smith: Yes.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mike Amesbury: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 19 December.

Theresa May: This Friday marks 30 years since the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, which resulted in the biggest loss of life from a terrorist atrocity on UK soil. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families and friends of the 270 people who perished, and with all those whose lives have been affected.
May I wish all Members and staff a merry Christmas and a happy new year? I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our warmest Christmas wishes to all our armed forces who are stationed overseas, and I am sure that I also speak on behalf of the whole House in sending Christmas wishes to all members of the emergency services and those who will be working over Christmas. Their service and sacrifice are inspirational, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mike Amesbury: I wish everyone here a merry Christmas: the Prime Minister, and all other Members.
The Prime Minister may recall that during the first Prime Minister’s Question Time of 2018, I asked her to do more to support the victims of the leasehold mis-selling scandal. May I use the last Question Time of the year to ask whether she has done anything about that, or whether she is going to kick it into the long grass as she did with the meaningful vote?

Theresa May: We have, in fact, been taking action in relation to leaseholds. We want to ensure that the leasehold system is transparent and fair to consumers, so that their homes truly feel like their own. In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced that no new Government funding scheme would be used to support the unjustified use of leasehold for new houses.
Our technical consultation on how to improve the lease- hold market for consumers has now closed. We have received responses from nearly 1,300 people and organisations, and we are analysing those responses. We will introduce legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Alberto Costa: As you will know, Mr Speaker, the issue of British nationals living in the EU and EU nationals living in the UK is of the utmost importance to every Member of the House. Given the Prime Minister’s welcome comments on her return from Salzburg about protecting the rights of EU nationals, at least those resident until 29 March, in the event of no deal, can she now confirm that in the event of no deal—and I hope that that will not be the case—she will reach a legally binding, multilateral agreement with the EU on the issue of citizens’ rights before 29 March?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has consistently raised and championed the needs and concerns of EU citizens here in the UK. Our withdrawal agreement does guarantee those rights, which is important not just for individuals, but for businesses. We are clear that in a no-deal scenario, EU citizens resident in the UK by 29 March 2019 will be able to stay and will be able to continue to access in-country benefits and services on broadly the same terms as now. That demonstrates our ongoing commitment; we obviously want to work with, and are strongly engaging with, our EU counterparts to urge them to make the same commitment to protect the rights of UK nationals living in the European Union. We have been clear about the rights of EU nationals here in a no-deal scenario; we want the EU to do the same for UK citizens living in the 27.

Jeremy Corbyn: I join the Prime Minister in remembering the events at Lockerbie 30 years ago. I remember the silence that fell on this entire building when the news came out of what had happened at Lockerbie. For the people of Lockerbie the trauma lives on, as it does for the families of the victims, and we should remember them today.
May I also take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to wish you and all Members of the House and everyone around our country a very happy Christmas, particularly those who have to work over Christmas and of course our armed services who will also be on duty over the Christmas period? All the best for a peaceful and welcome 2019. [Interruption.] I have gained acquiescence. My Christmas good wishes do extend to everyone over there on the Conservative Benches as well.
However, until then I just have to say this: the Prime Minister has plunged this country into a national crisis. She refused Parliament the right to vote on her Brexit deal. She said that she did that to seek “further assurances”; she failed. She is now claiming that she is still seeking further assurances while all the time running down the clock on the alternatives, so can the Prime Minister explain to us when the European Council will meet to approve the changes that it has already ruled out?

Theresa May: We are indeed still working with the European Union; we have discussions with the European Union to seek those assurances that this House wanted us to seek. May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point? He referenced the issue of the meaningful vote; we will have that meaningful vote here in the House. I set out earlier this week—[Interruption.] I set out—[Interruption.] There is absolutely no point in Opposition Members shouting out “When”, because I set out in the statement on Monday when that will take place.
I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that, week after week, he has stood here on this issue and talked about what he is against; he never says what he is for. If he wants to fulfil the will of the referendum—to support jobs, to end free movement, to do those trade deals, to avoid no deal—he needs to vote for this deal. He can talk all he likes about a meaningful vote; all he gives us is a meaningless position.

Jeremy Corbyn: We should have had the vote a week ago. The Prime Minister denied Parliament the opportunity to have that vote and she is still unclear as to when it will actually take place.
There are no meetings of the EU Council scheduled until 21 March, and the EU has been very clear: there are no more negotiations, clarifications or meetings. The Prime Minister will be bringing back the same deal she pulled last week; this is an intolerable situation, and she is simply playing for time.
On Monday, in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) on the backstop, the Prime Minister said:
“I am seeking further political and legal assurances in relation to those issues, which can be achieved in a number of ways.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 534.]
The Prime Minister must clearly set out now how she will achieve those legally binding assurances before the House is due to return on 7 January.

Theresa May: We will set out what is achieved in our EU discussions when we return in the new year, when we have had those discussions, when we bring those assurances back. The right hon. Gentleman can get as angry as he likes about this issue, but it does not hide the fact that he has no Brexit plan. I know it is Christmas, and I know that he has looked in his stocking, down the chimney and under the Christmas tree, but he still has not found a Brexit plan. He has to accept his responsibility to deliver on Brexit—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Mr Yasin, you are normally a most composed, almost laid-back individual. You are becoming very hot-headed and I am worried, for your own sake. Calm down! Be a good fellow.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has to accept his responsibility for delivering on Brexit. There are some people who say that the Leader of the Opposition is just going through the motions, but what we saw this week is that he is not even doing that.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is the Prime Minister who is supposed to be undertaking the negotiations. It is the Prime Minister who has failed to bring an acceptable deal back. If she does not like doing it, then step aside and let somebody else do it. The reality is that she is stalling for time—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I made it clear that the Prime Minister must not be shouted down, and no one should even bother trying to shout down the Leader of the Opposition. It will not work against the Prime Minister, and it will not work against the right hon. Gentleman. End of subject.

Jeremy Corbyn: The reality is that the Prime Minister is stalling for time. There is still no majority in this House for her shoddy deal. It is not stoical; it is cynical. As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) said:
“we have displacement activity designed to distract from last week’s failed renegotiation”.
The International Trade Secretary said:
“I think it is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop…I’m not even sure if the cabinet will agree for it to be put to the House of Commons”.
So can the Prime Minister give us a cast-iron guarantee that the vote in this House will not be delayed yet again?

Theresa May: We have been very clear about the process that we are going through and we have been very clear about when the vote will be brought back to this House. Of course the details of that debate have to be discussed in the usual channels in the usual way. The right hon. Gentleman made a response when I said that he had a responsibility to deliver on Brexit. Every Member of this House has a responsibility to deliver on Brexit, because 80% of the votes cast for Members of this House were for Members who stood on a manifesto commitment to honour the referendum and deliver on Brexit. What people will say to the right hon. Gentleman if he fails to recognise that he has a duty, as has everybody in this House, to deliver on Brexit, is that once again he has just bottled it.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister did not answer my question about a cast-iron guarantee. She is the one who has denied Parliament the right to vote on this  subject, so please let us have no lectures to Parliament when it is the Prime Minister who is denying MPs the possibility of a vote. We should have had a vote a week ago, and we should now be debating practical alternatives. She is behaving in a disgraceful way that is frankly an outrage. No deal would be a disaster for our country, and no responsible Government would ever allow it. Just two weeks ago the Chancellor said that preparations for leaving with no deal
“could not be done in a matter of months; they would take years to complete.”
No deal is simply not an option, so why does the Prime Minister not stop the pretence and stop wasting £4 billion in a cynical attempt to drive her deeply damaging deal through this House?

Theresa May: If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to see money being spent on no deal, he has an easy answer: vote for this deal.

Jeremy Corbyn: What the Prime Minister is doing is a criminal waste of money. She is recklessly running down—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. In this House of Commons, where we are supposed to try to treat each other with respect, no one, under any circumstances, is going to be shouted down, so stop the attempted shouting down, on both sides, abandon the juvenile finger-wagging, which achieves precisely nothing, and let each other be heard. It is called the assertion of democratic principle.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is recklessly running down the clock, all in a shameful attempt to make her own bad deal look like the lesser of two evils. With rising crime, 20,000 fewer police on our streets, 100,000 vacancies in our national health service, and the worst performance last month of any November on record, how can the Prime Minister justify wasting that money on no deal, which cannot and will not happen?

Theresa May: Until a deal has been ratified, the responsible position of Government—of any Government—is to put in place contingency arrangements for no deal. But I repeat that if the right hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that we leave the European Union with a deal, he has to put into practice what he is saying and actually vote for a deal. He talks yet again about the number of police officers and about money going to the police. We made extra money available to the police this year, and what did the Labour party do? It voted against it.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister should stop dithering and put it to a vote of the House. Let the House make  a decision. Her friend the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) was right, was she not, when she said that the threat of no deal is “an absolute disgrace”? The Prime Minister has thrown away two years on her botched negotiations. She is now recklessly wasting £4 billion of public money. She is holding Parliament and the country to ransom. She is irresponsibly risking jobs, investment and our industries. There have been no changes, so she must put her deal to the vote. Parliament must take back control. There is no majority in this House for no deal. Is this not just a deeply cynical manoeuvre from a failing and utterly reckless Prime Minister?

Theresa May: I have to say that it is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to stand here and talk about dithering. Let us see what the Labour party did this week. They said that they would call a vote of no confidence, and then they said that they would not. Then he said that he would, and then it was not effective—[Interruption.] I know that it is Christmas—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Members must not shout at the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. Calm yourselves. Try to get into the Christmas spirit. If you cannot do that, at least listen to the Prime Minister.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
They said they would put down a vote of no confidence, then they said they would not, then they said they would, and then they did it but it was not effective. I know it is the Christmas season and the pantomime season, but what do we see from the Labour Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition? He is going to put a confidence vote. Oh yes he is! [Hon. Members: “Oh no he isn’t!”] I have some news for him. I have some advice for the right hon. Gentleman: look behind you. They are not impressed, and neither is the country.

Tim Loughton: May I wish the Prime Minister a well deserved Chequers chillax over Christmas before the start of the new panto season? On the basis that there may be £39 billion going spare in the new year, may I give her my priority Christmas list? Justice for the 1950s WASPI women; genuinely fair funding for hard-pressed schools in West Sussex; addressing the estimated £2 billion shortfall in children’s social care; and, for good measure, a vote of absolutely no confidence whatsoever in Her Majesty’s Opposition.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes. In fact, I will not be at Chequers at Christmas, but I will take his good wishes to apply wherever I am at Christmas. As he will know, we are obviously putting more money into social care and the various issues he is concerned about. I do agree that if there is any vote of no confidence in this House it should be in the Leader of the Opposition.

Ian Blackford: I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks on the atrocity of Lockerbie. Mr Speaker, I wish you and everybody a merry Christmas. This is a time to be spent with friends and family, and I look forward to spending it on the Isle of Skye.
The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the EEF, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors represent hundreds of thousands of businesses, and today they have said that their members are “watching in horror” at the actions of this Government—watching in horror. This Prime Minister and the Conservative party are not fit for government. With 100 days left on the clock, this Government have failed businesses, failed Members of this House and failed citizens right across the UK. Will the Prime Minister move aside and put a vote to the people?

Theresa May: First, what is causing concern for businesses is the fact that Parliament has not been able to come to a decision because people—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members, including SNP  Members, pointing across the Chamber. They have a responsibility to deliver on Brexit for the British people as well, and it is high time they took that responsibility seriously. A deal that works for the UK, a deal that works for Scotland—that is what we are offering. It is supported by techUK, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scotch Whisky Association, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and Oil & Gas UK. They are supporting the deal, why  isn’t he?

Ian Blackford: If the Prime Minister thinks the deal is worth putting to the House, why did she pull the vote? The SNP will not stand by and watch this Prime Minister wreck our economy and rob our citizens of their rights.
Yesterday, alongside other Opposition party leaders, the SNP tabled a motion of no confidence in this shambolic Government. When the official Opposition fail to step up, the real opposition to this Tory Government will step in. The Prime Minister is now running scared and denying time for our motion for fear of the result. Is the Prime Minister so frightened of defeat that she will deny Parliament another vote?

Theresa May: We have been clear that Parliament will have a meaningful vote on the deal, and we have set out when that will be. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Scottish economy. If he is concerned about the Scottish economy, why have the Scottish Government taken measures that mean people in Scotland earning £27,000 or more will be paying more tax than they would in the rest of the UK? That is not good for the Scottish economy, and it is not good for the people concerned.

Andrew Bridgen: The Prime Minister was completely correct to castigate the Labour party for its deeply flawed plan to snatch shares in private companies. So will she join me in also condemning the South African Parliament, which is currently taking powers to seize land from its own citizens, without compensation and solely based on the colour of their skin? Not only is that wrong, but it risks turning another African country from a breadbasket into a basket case.

Theresa May: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed about this issue. The question of land reform was one I raised with President Ramaphosa when I visited South Africa in August. We recognise the concern there is and the need there is for land reform, but President Ramaphosa has consistently stated that violent and illegal land seizures will not be tolerated and that the process should be orderly within South African laws and take into consideration both the social and economic impact. We want to see a process that is fair and, while it recognises the need to deliver on land reform, does that in a way that is fair to all South African citizens.

Grahame Morris: It is only a few short months since the Prime Minister promised us an end to austerity. So why, at a time when demands on council resources in deprived areas such as mine are increasing and health inequalities are widening, does she believe it is right to cut the public health budget for County Durham by £19 million and increase the public health budget in affluent Surrey by £14 million?

Theresa May: Obviously, there are funding arrangements that apply across in terms of the decisions on these sums of money. The hon. Gentleman talks about disparities that occur. Of course funding per dwelling for the local authority in Durham is more than it is in other areas—it is more than it is in my Maidenhead constituency. So there are proper ways of looking at these issues and ensuring, as we are by putting more money into our local authorities, that the money is there for them to do the job they need to do.

Kevin Hollinrake: Senior managers at Lloyds and HBOS were convicted of a disgraceful fraud against their own business customers. Now there is compelling evidence of a cover-up at the highest level, including a recent admission of the disgraceful mistreatment of a whistleblower. This week, the compensation scheme for victims was described by Jonathan Laidlaw, QC, as “partial” to the bank’s interests. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chief executive, Antonio Horta-Osorio, should now consider his position and that the compensation scheme should be replaced by an independent process of arbitration?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I know that he has consistently campaigned on it. I understand that he raised it yesterday in a debate in Westminster Hall. As he said in his question, the events at HBOS Reading—at that branch—constituted criminal activity, and it is right that those responsible were brought to justice. Decisions about whether to launch financial services conduct investigations are the responsibility of the Financial Conduct Authority, as the independent regulator for the sector. I understand that it is currently conducting two investigations into the events at HBOS Reading, including into the bank’s communications with regulators following the discovery of the misconduct. Obviously, we look forward to the conclusions of those investigations. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to champion the needs and concerns of all those who found themselves recipients and victims of what was identified as criminal activity.

John Mann: For almost 400 years, this country, almost uniquely in the world, has been a place of safety and security, and a place where Jewish communities have thrived. In 2018, many in the Jewish community are questioning whether that will be the case into the future. A disturbingly large number of young Jewish people are questioning whether they should remain in this country. Does the Prime Minister agree that 2019 has to be a year when we all stand up and be counted, to ensure that those young Jewish people believe in and stay in this country, wishing to contribute and no longer fearing for their future?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Jewish people should be able to feel safe and secure in this country. I never thought I would see the day when Jewish people living in this country questioned whether they should stay in this country. This is a terrible state of affairs that we have come to. There is no place for racial hatred in our society and it is important that we all take every step to tackle it. I was very pleased to host the reception for the recent groundbreaking Sara conference, organised by the hon. Gentleman and the all-party group on antisemitism, along with the  Antisemitism Policy Trust, which looked at the twin evils of misogyny and antisemitism. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the need for us all—every one of us—to stand up as we go into the new year and say that 2019 will be the year when we stand up and say there is no place for antisemitism or racial hatred in our society.

Roger Gale: Most Members of this House, on both sides, are likely to spend much of the recess working, as I know my right hon. Friend herself will. Given the cost of staffing and security, can my right hon. Friend think of any reason at all, other than grandstanding, for the early recall of Parliament? Will she, with our good wishes, continue her endeavours to seek a solution to what we all know is a very intractable problem?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we are able to conduct the discussions that are taking place with the European Union. We have been clear that we will bring the meaningful vote back to the House, and it is right that we have set out the timing on which that will be done. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that when Members of this House leave Parliament as we go into recess, they do not just go away; they go to their constituencies and work in their constituencies and for their constituents. That is all too frequently forgotten by many, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising it and reminding us of it.

Jonathan Reynolds: Homelessness in the UK is now a national emergency and a national disgrace. How can it be, in a country of our resources, our talents and our wealth, that this year 320,000 British people have been classed as being homeless? Don’t listen to your Ministers, Prime Minister; you only need to go to any British city centre this Christmas to see just how bad this problem has become since 2010. Whatever the Government think they are doing, it is not enough. Prime Minister, please, will you try to do better next year?

Theresa May: First, in the way that the hon. Gentleman put his question he is confusing or putting together homelessness and rough sleeping. These are different issues. Nobody should have to sleep rough on the streets of this country, which is why we are taking action against it. The hon. Gentleman raises the wider issue of homelessness. Why is it that we have this wider issue? It is because Governments, year after year, failed to build enough homes in this country. We need to ensure that we are building those homes. That is what this Government are doing. Last year we saw the number of homes being built at the highest level for any but one of the last 31 years. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that there is a variety of housing available to people in this country, it is this Government who have ensured that councils can borrow more to build more houses, and what did he and the Labour party do? They voted against it.

Maria Caulfield: Twelve young people die each week in this country from sudden cardiac arrest, and that figure could be reduced significantly by the availability of more defibrillators. Will the Prime Minister therefore support my ten-minute rule Bill,  which I will present to Parliament this afternoon, and which will require the mandatory installation of defibrillators in all schools, leisure centres and public buildings so that we can end this needless loss of life?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which we take extremely seriously. We are certainly committed to encouraging all schools to acquire defibrillators as part of their first aid equipment. The Department for Education has been working with the NHS to make these life-saving devices more affordable. They have also become easier to use in recent times. I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, but to those many people up and down the country who are campaigning and raising funds to ensure that there are defibrillators not just in schools but in other places, such as outside the hall in Holyport in my constituency. The defibrillator there was paid for by money raised by people in that village. We should commend such people for what they are doing, and we will continue to work to ensure that defibrillators are available.

Dan Jarvis: The Office for National Statistics excess winter mortality figures show that, in our country over the past 10 years, 313,000 people have died because of the cold. Last winter, 50,000 died, the highest number of winter casualties since 1976. It is a shameful indictment of our ability as a country to protect our most elderly and vulnerable residents, so may I ask the Prime Minister to say specifically what she will do this winter to prevent thousands of people from dying needlessly?

Theresa May: There are many actions that the Government are taking in relation to the wider issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised about people saving lives over the winter—action is being taken in the NHS and elsewhere. Of course, for people to be able to heat their homes and to have confidence that they can afford to heat their homes, it is important that we help those who find themselves stuck on tariffs that are not right for them—that are higher than they should be. That is why our energy price cap is an important step in this. It will help 11 million households. On average, £76 a year will be saved and for some £130.

Gary Streeter: My right hon. Friend will be aware that demand for special educational needs is increasing throughout the country and that resources are thinly spread. Will she undertake in 2019 to make it an even higher priority for our Government to provide generous support for these very special children?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The need to ensure that we are providing for children with special educational needs is very important. We are already seeing £6 billion this year going towards children with complex special educational needs; that  is the highest level on record. We are also investing £265 million through to 2021 to create new school places and improve the existing facilities for children with special educational needs and those with disabilities. But it is also about the programme we have with our free schools; 34 special schools have opened so far with  a further 55 in the pipeline. That is providing for children with special educational needs and we will continue to do so.

Stella Creasy: Yesterday, within hours of the Prime Minister greenlighting the no-deal preparations, a constituent contacted me to say that he had been sent a redundancy notice by his work directly as a result of the chaos that this will cause. Her own figures show that any Brexit deal will leave us poorer, but no deal means a £24 billion hit to our public finances. The Chancellor barracks—these are his own figures. Can the Prime Minister tell my now unemployed constituent what public services she is going to cut, or what taxes she is planning to raise to deal with that hole? Or is she just going to leave it to one of her successors to deal with these problems?

Theresa May: While the Government are making contingency arrangements for no deal, of course, what they are working for is to get the agreement on the deal that has been negotiated with the European Union such that we leave with a good deal for the United Kingdom that ensures that jobs are increased in this country, as they have been over the last eight years under a Conservative Government.

Sarah Wollaston: Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all NHS, social care and emergency services staff who will be working over Christmas and the new year? Imagine how many more of them could be employed if we were not haemorrhaging billions preparing for a disastrous no deal. Could the Prime Minister end the uncertainty by ruling out no deal and will she also end the uncertainty please by publishing the long-term 10-year plan for the NHS before we break for Christmas?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend and indeed a number of others have raised this question of no deal and not wanting to have no deal. As I said earlier in answer to questions, there is a simple way to ensure that we do not leave with no deal, and that is to back the deal.

Ian Lucas: Motor neurone disease is terminal but, under this Government, people who are diagnosed with this dreadful disease have to prove that they have a reasonable expectation of death within six months, or go through a process of assessment. Will the Prime Minister show some empathy, show some compassion and take action with her new Secretary of State to end this dreadful state of affairs which she is presiding over?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue about people with motor neurone disease. I note his point and will inquire about these issues with the Department for Work and Pensions. I will look  into the issue and respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing.

Justine Greening: The Prime Minister is sending Parliament off for a two-week break at the very moment that we have a Brexit crisis and no decisions. Our communities want us here, representing them in Parliament. If we are not even back until 7 January,  how can she possibly say that we are doing our job? Is not the message to the British people, “Crisis? What crisis?”

Theresa May: We are in a very simple situation, as I am sure my right hon. Friend understands. Members across the House raised some concerns specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland backstop in the withdrawal agreement. We are having further discussions with the European Union on that matter to achieve the political and legal assurances that will assuage those concerns, and then we will bring the vote back to this House.

Chris Elmore: As the Home Secretary will not answer a rather straightforward question, will the Prime Minister tell us whether it is still her intention that her Government will reduce immigration to the tens of thousands? Yes or no?

Theresa May: Yes. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Let us have a bit of hush for a midlands Dame—Dame Caroline Spelman.

Caroline Spelman: The Prime Minister was sent a letter on a cross-party basis from those of us who have manufacturing workers and those who support them in our constituencies, who are deeply concerned about the impact of Brexit on their jobs. Does she agree that the best way to avoid the unnecessary economic damage of leaving with no deal is to leave with a deal and protect those jobs?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The manufacturing industry has been clear with us that it wants the country to leave the European Union with a deal that helps to protect those jobs. That is exactly what we want to do, and that is the decision that Parliament will be faced with when we bring the meaningful vote back.

Lilian Greenwood: Almost 1,000 Nottingham South residents have already responded to my Brexit survey. Only 7% back the Prime Minister’s deal and more than three quarters want to vote on Brexit if MPs cannot agree. She will not let Parliament have a vote and she opposes letting the people have a vote. Are not her attempts to dodge and delay simply costly and reckless?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is wrong. She says that I will not let Parliament have a vote; Parliament will have a vote when we have conducted those further discussions with the EU.

Anna Soubry: I am afraid that the Prime Minister is wrong when she says that the choice that will eventually face this House is the choice between her deal and no deal. I gently say that no responsible Conservative Prime Minister—we are, after all, the party of business—would be so reckless as to take us out of the European Union without a deal. Will the Prime Minister now commit to this—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Some junior Minister presumes to try to shout down the right hon. Lady. Not only unethical, Mr Opperman, but always—everywhere, without exception—doomed to fail.

Anna Soubry: It is a little dangerous as well, if I may say so.
When the Prime Minister’s deal fails, as we all know it will, will she then commit to allowing this House to consider all the various options that exist, other than her deal, by way of proper meaningful votes, as a matter of urgency, given that the clock is ticking down?

Theresa May: The House will be having the meaningful vote that it asked for. That meaningful vote will be on the deal that has been agreed and negotiated with the European Union, subject to the further work that is being undertaken in relation to the assurances. I recognise the concern about no deal raised by my right hon. Friend and other Members. I come back to the point that the only way to ensure that we do not leave with no deal is to ensure that we leave with a deal.

Mary Glindon: Will the Prime Minister quickly intervene to overcome the difficulties at the Home Office which are obstructing my constituent, Lara Smith, from accessing her vital medication, Dronabinol, and which may mean that she will have to face unaffordable procurement costs, plus hundreds of pounds for the drug itself?

Theresa May: The Home Secretary is obviously on the Front Bench and has heard the hon. Lady’s question. I will ask him to respond to her.

Philip Davies: The Prime Minister originally said that if we left the EU without a deal we would not pay it any money. She has more recently said that if we leave without a deal we would have to pay it some money. She must have taken some legal advice on this issue, as no British Prime Minister would commit billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money without finding out what our strict legal financial liability is. Given that, can she set out exactly what the legal advice is on how much money we would have to give the EU if we left without a deal, which sections of the EU treaties those financial liabilities stem from, and how much she would give over to the EU if we were to leave without a deal, as this is information that this House needs to know and the EU needs to know? I am a generous man—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I am not having the hon. Gentleman shouted down; he will complete his question.

Philip Davies: I am a reasonable and generous man, so if the Prime Minister does not have that information to hand, then perhaps she would write to me after this session with the answers to those specific questions.

Theresa May: I do not have the answers to all of those questions straight to hand, and I will indeed write to my hon. Friend.

Peter Grant: Immigration from the European Union has significantly benefited my constituency economically, socially and culturally, as it has benefited all 650 constituencies in these four nations. The Government’s own analysis shows that cutting immigration from the European Union hurts our economy, and that is precisely what the immigration White Paper about to be published aims to do. Can the  Prime Minister identify a single tangible benefit that my constituents will notice that could possibly compensate for lower earnings, lower standards of living and desperate staff shortages in our public services?

Theresa May: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he looks at previous research that has been done by the Migration Advisory Committee that shows that in certain economic circumstances the numbers of people coming to the United Kingdom from the European Union, and overall migration into the United Kingdom, did have an effect on people here already resident in the United Kingdom and their ability to get into the jobs market.

Paul Scully: Mr Speaker, you have helpfully circulated an update on the behaviour in this place. This year, when we have been celebrating 100 years of women getting the vote, does my right hon. Friend think it is appropriate language to call people stupid women in this Chamber?

Theresa May: I think that everybody in this House, particularly on the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote, should be aiming to encourage women to come into this Chamber and to stand in this Chamber, and should therefore use appropriate language in this Chamber when they are referring to female Members.

Nigel Dodds: May I join with others in wishing everybody a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year? As the Prime Minister ponders over Christmas what might be done to get her withdrawal agreement through this House, can I urge her to consider the necessary changes that need to be made—not just assurances—in order to get somewhere with any realistic prospect of actually winning that vote?

Theresa May: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that I would like to give him the reassurance that we will of course look at all the options that are available for dealing with the issues that have been raised.

POINTS OF ORDER

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: No, points of order come after statements, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware. [Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Calm down! I do not need any advice from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). I understand that the point of order flows from the exchanges, and in those circumstances, as I have done on previous occasions, I will take the point of order—[Interruption.] No, I am taking the point of order from the right hon. Gentleman. I will be the judge of these matters.

Patrick McLoughlin: Mr Speaker, you may not have seen it, but during the exchanges in Prime Minister’s questions, when the Leader of the Opposition sat down, he muttered words that were quite clearly visible, accusing the Prime Minister of being a “stupid woman”. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Bearing in mind the booklet that you issued this week, and the words that the Leader of the Opposition said last September, would it not be appropriate for him to come back to the Chamber and apologise?

John Bercow: I am pleased to respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order. As he rightly surmised at the start of it, I saw no such thing. I am not making an allegation, and I am not denying or seeking to refute that of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot be expected to pronounce upon that which I did not see, which I did not hear and which was not witnessed by my advisers. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any advice on how to respond to a point of order from the right hon. Gentleman, which is what I am doing.
What I say in response, with all courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, who is perfectly entitled to have raised that point of order, is that it is incumbent upon all Members of this House to operate in accordance with its best conventions and to follow the conventions and courtesies. If a Member has failed to do so, that Member has a responsibility to apologise. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that. What he cannot, and I am sure does not, expect me to do is pronounce a verdict in a circumstance which I did not witness, in terms of either seeing anything or hearing anything, and neither did my advisers. I will leave it there. It is perfectly proper that the right hon. Gentleman raised the matter. I have responded to it, and there can be no “further to that point of order,” because I have—[Interruption.] Order.

Patrick McLoughlin: indicated assent.

John Bercow: There can be no “further to that point of order” on that matter, for the simple reason—as the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges, with his nod of assent—that he has raised it with me, and I have responded to it.

Andrea Leadsom: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Is it on an unrelated matter?

Andrea Leadsom: No, it is on this.

John Bercow: No. [Interruption.] I am not going to take lectures from Members. It is normal convention in this place and part of the conventions and courtesies of this House that when a matter has been addressed, we do not have repeat points of order on exactly the same—[Interruption.] Order. We do not have repeat points of order on exactly the same matter. [Interruption.] Order. I am perfectly prepared to take a point of order on the matter from the Leader of the House. We have heavy business today, some of which is Government statements, and with which we will in due course—preferably reasonably soon—need to proceed. I will happily take the right hon. Lady’s point of order.

Andrea Leadsom: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to ask, after your finding that individuals who are found to have made unwelcome remarks should apologise, why it is that when an Opposition Member found that you had called me a “stupid woman”, you did not apologise in this Chamber.

John Bercow: No, no. [Interruption.] I will deal with the point. [Interruption.] I dealt with that matter months ago in remarks that I made to the House of Commons, to which the right hon. Lady in our various meetings since has made no reference, and which requires from the Chair today no elaboration whatsoever. She has asked the question. I dealt with it months ago. I have reiterated the rationale for the way in which I responded. The matter has been treated of, and I am leaving it there.

Anna Soubry: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. With great respect to you, I have to say this. If it was one of my male colleagues on the Government Benches who had used that expression against a woman on the Opposition Front Bench, you would take action immediately. This is not acceptable. Please will you deal with it as you often do—in a fair way—but also from the point of view of women in this House, who are fed up with being abused by men over decades?

John Bercow: I am very happy to deal with it. The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that if I witnessed an instance of the kind that has been alleged, I would deprecate it unreservedly. [Interruption.] It is no good people shaking their heads. I received assent to the proposition, which I think would command widespread assent, simply and logically that I cannot be expected to deprecate the behaviour of an individual that I did not witness. [Interruption.] Order. If the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady is asking me whether I deprecate without reservation the use of such language, yes, obviously I do, without any hesitation, but I cannot be expected to pronounce judgment in a particular case on a given individual when I was not privy to the circumstances. If she is asking me whether that language is unacceptable, it is.

Anna Soubry: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can see Members’ phones—clearly the evidence exists. If we bring it to you within the next two minutes, will you then take action? Again, I make the point that if a male on this side of the House had said this about  a woman on the other side, I think you would.

John Bercow: The answer is—forgive me—that it is incumbent upon a Member who has erred and who has used inappropriate language and behaved improperly to come to the House—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] It is incumbent upon that person to recognise the misconduct and to apologise for it. [Interruption.] Order. If Members produce what they regard as evidence, of course it is reasonable—[Interruption.] If Members produce what they regard as evidence—[Interruption.] I am in the middle of responding.

James Cleverly: Our word is evidence!

John Bercow: I ask the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) to have the courtesy to allow me to respond to the right hon. Lady’s point of order. If evidence is produced, it will be considered, and I will take professional advice, as fair-minded people would expect me to do.

Vicky Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you confirm that it is not acceptable parliamentary language to call a woman a “stupid woman” in this House? As regards the point of order from the Leader of the House, may I add the words “Me too”?

John Bercow: The answer is that I have already made the response to that point perfectly clear. Forgive me—I treat the hon. Lady with courtesy and respect, and she is perfectly entitled to raise a point of order, but of that point I have already treated.

James Cleverly: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the leaflet you distributed, you make the point, rightly, that we are all honourable Members. Our word is therefore evidence. I saw it, Sir—I saw him  say it.

John Bercow: All I—[Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. I am not seeking to refute what the hon. Gentleman is saying—[Interruption.] Order. I am simply saying I did not witness it. The Clerk of the House and the other Clerks at the Table did not witness it—[Interruption.] Order. I am sorry, I cannot be expected immediately—[Interruption.] Order. It is no good somebody waving something at me. I cannot be expected immediately to pronounce guilt or innocence. [Interruption.] No, no I cannot be expected—[Interruption.] What I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. I will deal with it in a moment. What I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman is that Members are responsible for their own conduct and should apologise if they have committed a misdemeanour—[Interruption.] It is no good a Member standing by the Chair and trying to show me something. I would say—[Interruption.] What I say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. What I say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Leader of the Opposition will have heard of the allegations that have been made—[Interruption.] He will have heard the allegations—[Interruption.] Order. If the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of those, chose to come to the House and to respond, I am sure that would be appreciated by the House.

Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the observations made by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I hope I bow to no one in my wish  to see the courtesies of this House observed, but do you believe that it is in order for what appears to be becoming almost an orchestrated riot to take place? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. No, I am sorry. Hon. and—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. and right hon. Members have raised points of order, and they have been heard and they have been answered. The notion that the right hon. Lady stands to raise a point of order and is then shouted down—[Interruption.] Don’t “no” to me. That is exactly what an attempt was being made to achieve and it is not going to work.

Margaret Beckett: Certainly, Mr Speaker, it does seem to me—and I have been in this House for some many years—that an attempt is presently being made to shout you down. There is much serious business before this House and I would be astonished if a single one of our constituents does not view these scenes with utter contempt.

John Bercow: I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Yes, of course I will come to the other Members.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is clear that this has raised some significant upset, certainly on the Government side and, I suspect, among some women—[Interruption.] The issue of the Leader of the Opposition being alleged to have called someone a “stupid woman”—to have called the Prime Minister of our country a “stupid woman”—has clearly caused high feeling. It is also clear that many hon. and right hon. Members have evidence to show you. I am really grateful that you are willing to look at that and then to take the advice that you need before coming back to the House. Can I ask within what timeframe you expect to be able to do so?

John Bercow: Yes. [Interruption.] Order. That is a very reasonable point of order. The answer is that I reiterate that I am happy to look at that evidence, if that evidence exists.

Michael Fabricant: Oh, it does.

John Bercow: I do not need the hon. Gentleman to chunter—[Interruption.] I do not need the intervention of the hon. Gentleman, which does not advance matters. What I say to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), with courtesy, is that I have heard her point of order. I am willing to consider that evidence and I would come back on the matter, as advised by the Clerk, after the two statements to the House. That seems perfectly reasonable. We have two statements to follow. If the evidence exists, it can be looked at, and a response can be provided and we can take the matter from there, but it can perfectly reasonably wait and should sensibly do so until the two statements have been delivered to the House and questioning has taken place on them.

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for looking at the evidence—I think they call it VAR in football—but when you come back, would it be possible for the House authorities to have contacted the office of the Leader of the Opposition to make sure that he is present to hear your ruling?

John Bercow: Let us wait to see. If I have a ruling, it would be a great courtesy if the Leader of the Opposition were here, and I very much hope that he will be. I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Stella Creasy: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Calling anybody a “stupid woman” is not acceptable. Can I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)—that also what is important, if we want to encourage a wide range of people to get involved in politics, is that we have cool heads, accessible processes and an honest way of proceeding? Right now, the most important thing for this House is to be able to go away and look at the evidence and get on with doing our job, so Mr Speaker, please can you tell us how we move on to the next bit of business?

John Bercow: The answer is—[Interruption.] Order. I do not need the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) continually ranting—[Interruption.] Order. Don’t argue the toss with me, Mr Hoare. I will call the points of order when I am —[Interruption.] I will call them when I am ready. What I say to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is that the best way in which to proceed is to move to the statements, and I will treat of further points of order in the circumstances. Do not forget, I was not aware of this alleged evidence, and it has been brought to light by points of order, but the sooner the points of order come to an end, the sooner we can proceed with the next business of the House of Commons.

Simon Hoare: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You used the word—perfectly properly—“evidence” on a number of occasions. Certainly, I think a number of us will have seen clips—on a variety of Twitter feeds—and anybody who has a basic lip-reading skill will understand what the Labour leader had to say about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Sir, will you undertake to take into evidence things which people have tweeted out to show that—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: I will certainly take—[Interruption.] No, no, I have got the point.

Simon Hoare: And to show—

John Bercow: Come on, quickly.

Simon Hoare: And indeed to take the television footage taken by the officials of this place.

John Bercow: Yes. I do not honestly think that added much, frankly. I think the commitment was pretty clear, but yes, I am very happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with the assurance that he seeks.

David Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have the utmost respect for your position and the Chair. If you look at what has been put forward in evidence and you come back with a judgment, would you please call the Leader of the Opposition back to the Chamber so that we can hear the full evidence of what has been put forward?

John Bercow: I think I rather indicated that I expected that to happen, so if the hon. Gentleman seeks the assurance that I would expect the Leader of the Opposition to be here, the answer is yes.

Bob Seely: rose—

Mark Francois: rose—

John Bercow: I am saving the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford up—it would be a pity to squander him.

Bob Seely: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When you have seen the video replay—and thank God for video replays—and you decide to come back to the House, do you have the power to call the Leader of the Opposition back to make sure that he is here to face us?

John Bercow: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, technically, I do not have that power, but I think it reasonable to suppose in the circumstances that the Leader of the Opposition would return to the Chamber. I think that is an entirely reasonable assumption—[Interruption.] It is not for me to get into that until the evidence has been assessed, but it is reasonable to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman would return to the Chamber.

Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not taking part in an “orchestrated riot”, but I would like politely to ask a question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) was quite right that in these circumstances: you should consult the video referee, and I think you will find that the video evidence is overwhelming. Earlier, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a very powerful point at Prime Minister’s questions about antisemitism, and there was a great “Hear, hear!” around the Chamber. None of us in any part of the House would countenance an antisemitic statement—particularly made at the Dispatch Box of the Commons. If we are not going to have antisemitic statements, we cannot have misogynistic statements either.

John Bercow: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman 100%. I agree with him—for the avoidance of doubt and benefiting by repetition—100%.
If we have concluded the points of order, of which it is pretty clear that I have attempted to treat in detail, we come now to the first of the two ministerial statements.

FUTURE IMMIGRATION

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the UK’s future border and immigration system after we leave the EU.
We all heard the public’s concerns about immigration in the run-up to the EU referendum. These were concerns held by many voters on both sides of the debate. The result of that referendum was clear: the UK will be leaving the European Union on the 29 March 2019. This means we can end freedom of movement so that, for the first time for more than 40 years, we will be able to say who can and who cannot come into this country.
This is an historic moment, but let us be clear. The United Kingdom has a proud history of being an open and welcoming nation, and this will not change. As the son of immigrant parents, I know full well the contribution they, like many other migrants, made to the community I grew up in. We recognise and value the contribution of immigration and the contribution it has made to our society, our culture, our economy and our communities, and this cannot be over-stressed. For example, there is how it has helped to deliver vital public services. It has brought new perspectives, expertise and knowledge, stimulating growth and making us all the more the tolerant, outward-looking nation that we are today.
Britain is going to stay open for business. We will continue to welcome talented migrants from every corner of the globe. We have been clear in saying to the 3 million EU nationals already here, “We value hugely the contribution that you have made to this country. Deal or no deal, we want you to stay, and we will protect your rights.” The future system is about making sure immigration works in the best interests of the UK. We are absolutely not closing our doors. We are simply making sure that we have control over who comes through them, ensuring, as we committed to do in our manifesto, that we are able to bring annual net migration down to more sustainable levels.
Today, we have published a White Paper setting out the Government’s proposals for doing this through a single, skills-based immigration system that will seize the unique opportunities enabled by the end of free movement. Copies are available for right hon. and hon. Members in the Vote Office. I would like to highlight to the House the key proposals and principles in it.
First, free movement will come to an end. Tomorrow, we will introduce the immigration and social security co-ordination (EU withdrawal) Bill to implement this. It will make European economic area and Swiss nationals and their family members subject to UK immigration control, and it will protect the status of Irish nationals. This means that in the future everyone other than British and Irish citizens will need to get UK permission before they can come here.
Secondly, there will be a single immigration system for all nationalities. The existing automatic preference for EU citizens will end. This approach will give everyone the same chance, regardless of where they are from—levelling the playing field to welcome the most talented workers from anywhere in the world.
Thirdly, this will be a skills-based system, giving priority to those with the skills we need. We are taking this approach to ensure that we can attract the brightest  and the best people to the UK—those who will help our economy flourish. This follows advice that has been commissioned by the Government from the independent Migration Advisory Committee on the impact of European migration on the UK economy and society. We believe this is fair, and it will help drive up wages and productivity across our economy.
Following these three principles, we are acting to make the future immigration system work for those coming to our country, for businesses, for our public services and for the UK as a whole. Our approach will maintain protections for British workers while cutting bureaucracy. Fundamental to this will be a new route for skilled workers to ensure that employers can access the talent that they need to compete on the world stage. There will be no cap on numbers and no requirement for the highest skilled workers to undertake a resident labour market test, and there will be a minimum salary threshold.
We are also creating a time-limited short-term workers route to ensure businesses have the staff that they need to fill jobs, as they adapt to a new immigration system. We will ask the MAC to keep this scheme under review, so that it ensures a smooth transition. This route will be open to seasonal and low-skilled workers, along with high-skilled workers who need to come to the UK for longer than the current business visitor visa rules allow. Those who arrive under this scheme will have no rights to access public funds, to settle or to bring in dependants. The White Paper sets out our initial proposals to allow these short-term workers to come to the UK for 12 months at a time, followed by a year-long cooling-off period to prevent long-term working. We will be engaging extensively with businesses and with stakeholders on the length of the stay and the cooling-off period to make sure that we get this right.
These proposals will give protection to British workers, but we have recognised that immigration alone cannot be the solution, so we will continue as a Government, working in partnership with business, to invest in and to improve the productivity and skills of the UK workforce.
Our world-class universities will also benefit from the proposed new system. There will be no limits on the number of international students who will come here, and we continue to encourage them to come and study here. We will make it easier for graduates to stay and to work. This will widen the talent pool for businesses and boost economic growth.
Our plans are about opening Britain up for business, rather than creating new red tape. The future immigration system will be quick and easy to use. We will introduce a streamlined application process for those who are visiting, coming to work or coming to study, and this will use the very latest technology. This will improve the experience visitors and travellers have when they are crossing the border. We will also make it possible for more people to use e-gates. At the same time, we will improve security at the border by introducing an electronic travel authorisation scheme and phasing out the use of insecure national identity cards.
We are proposing a single, skills-based immigration system that will be fit for the future—one that is flexible to accommodate the trade deals that we agree with the EU and with other countries. It will operate from 2021, and it will be phased in to give individuals, businesses and the Government the time needed to adapt. This  means that individuals do not need to make immediate changes and that businesses do not need to rush through plans based on guesswork about the future system.
The immigration White Paper outlines the proposals for the biggest change to our immigration system in a generation. However, it is important to note that it is not the final word; rather, it is the starting point of a national conversation on a future immigration system. I am pleased to announce that the Government will be launching a year-long programme of engagement across the UK to ensure that a wide range of views are heard.
I am confident all the measures that have been outlined today will ensure that the UK continues to flourish outside the EU; that the future immigration system is geared towards controlling who can come here and for what purpose, reducing net migration, while ensuring the brightest and the best can work and study here; and that it will boost our economy and benefit the British people. We are building a fair and sustainable immigration system that answers the concerns people have rightly had about free movement—an immigration system that is designed in Britain, made in Britain and serves our national interest. I commend this statement to the House.

Diane Abbott: I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of the statement.
As the whole House knows, since the 2016 referendum politics has been convulsed by the debate about Brexit, and we have seen ever more heightened convulsions in recent days. At the heart of the debate, as far as many of our constituents are concerned, have been migration issues. That is why it is a disgrace that it has taken the Government so long to produce this long-promised White Paper. It is almost a year late, and this is entirely because of internal disputes in the Cabinet.
The whole House knows that when we leave the single market, freedom of movement falls. The Labour party set that out in our manifesto, and it remains our position. Then there will be an urgent need to fashion a new and, we hope, fairer immigration system, but the important thing is that, going forward, we do not base the new immigration system on some of the myths of the past. The whole House heard the Prime Minister say that the Government were still committed to reducing migration to tens of thousands—a target that has never been met, will never be met, and is a pretext for anti-immigrant measures—but many Members will have heard the Home Secretary on the radio today, repeatedly refusing to commit himself to the tens of thousands target. So which is it? Where do the Government stand? Will they continue with a bogus and unachievable target, or will they genuinely try to shape an immigration system that meets the needs of the society?
If the Home Secretary is allowed to abandon the commitment to a formal target in the tens of thousands, that would be welcome. That target was a purely political device, designed to stress the Government’s intent to crack down on immigration when the Conservatives felt under pressure from UKIP, but the House will wait to see what his attitude to targets means in practice. The danger is that he will abandon formal adherence to targets in principle, but that the Home Office—particularly hearing, as it will have heard, what the Prime Minister  has to say—will continue to function in the same way, with all the distortions, all the unfairness and all the inefficiencies that arbitrary targets lead to.
I support a single immigration system for all nationalities. To my certain knowledge, nothing drove pro-leave sentiment among voters of Commonwealth origin more than the sense that they were disadvantaged in relation to immigration compared with EU nationals. So, if Brexit produces nothing else, it ought to produce a system that moves away from that unfairness. We should be a country that treats the doctor from Poland in the same way as a doctor from Pakistan.
Is the Home Secretary aware of the concern that the uncertainty about the Government’s intentions and the delays in producing a White Paper have produced among EU citizens, their friends, their families and their employers? Is he able to tell us when we will know what the minimum salary threshold will be? There is much concern that the minimum salary threshold will be at £30,000, which would actually rule out healthcare workers, social care workers and technicians, and be very damaging to both the private and public sector. When will we know what that threshold will be?
As for the arrangement that the Home Secretary set out in the statement about time-limited temporary short-term workers who have no rights to access public funds, settle or bring dependants—they would come for 12 months at a time, followed by a year-long cooling-off period—that might suit some sectors, notably agriculture, but it is a very alarming prospect for most employers because it will not allow them to establish the continuity of employment that is vital for delivering their services, whether in the private or the public sector.
Does the Home Secretary really think that the Home Office has the capacity to change its established ways of working and its unofficial targets, which it was clearly working towards and helped contribute to the Windrush scandal? Does he accept that on immigration, he cannot have it both ways? He cannot talk about an outward-looking, global Britain and meeting the needs of society and employers, while being part of a Government with a rhetoric of cracking down on migration—a rhetoric that, I might add, implicitly denigrates the parents of many of us in this House. He cannot be part of a Government with photocalls at airports to stress how they are cracking down on migrants. He cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to speak for a Government who are genuinely outward-looking, genuinely global in their outlook, he needs to move away definitively from that anti-migrant rhetoric and he needs to take steps to dismantle the hostile environment, much of which was implemented under this Government.
Conservative Members may say that the Labour party in government sometimes brought forward immigration legislation that was unfair and unsustainable. I should know—I voted against all of it. So please do not come to the Dispatch Box and make that point. Many of us who sit on the Front Bench voted against those items of legislation again and again. The question for this Government is not what previous Governments did, but what they are going to do. On immigration, rhetoric about global Britain is not enough; they need to dismantle the hostile environment, and they need to create a system that is at the same time fair to migrants, fair to employers and fair to the society.
The Windrush scandal upset society as a whole and Members on both sides of the House, but it was not an aberration; it was a consequence of a way to look at migrants that was essentially negative, which was reflected, sadly, in legislation passed under more than one Government. The system that the Home Secretary has set out in his statement will not meet the needs of migrants for certainty. It will not meet the needs of employers for a stable, skilled workforce. Above all, this statement, although it may read well to people who want to see migration cracked down on, does not meet the need of the hour. Brexit offers, if it offers nothing else, the chance to put in place an efficient—no one that deals with the Home Office nowadays can say that it is universally efficient—fair and non-discriminatory immigration system that meets the needs of the society. We should seize that opportunity. I believe that this White Paper statement falls far short of that.

Sajid Javid: First, I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and for the conversation that we had earlier in the day. We might not always agree on issues, including the approach to immigration that is set out in the White Paper, but she has always approached these issues and debate with courtesy and respect. That is great to see and, sadly, not an attitude shown by every member of the Opposition Front-Bench team, as we have seen a moment ago, but certainly she has always shown that. I may not see her again across the Dispatch Box before the end of the year, so I wish her and her team a happy Christmas.
The right hon. Lady asks a number of important questions. First, she rightly emphasises that we should make it clear that, whatever happens when it comes to immigration, it is fair to say that all parties are united in trying in their way to make sure that we remain an open and welcoming country to migrants from across the world who come to the UK to work, to study or to visit, and it is great to have a Parliament that almost universally accepts that. She, like me, is the child of first-generation migrants. Her parents, like mine and countless others, have made a huge contribution to this country and making it what it is, and we should all celebrate that and try to demonstrate that more as the kind of thing that we want to see in our country. I hope that, as the right hon. Lady and her colleagues have time to digest what is in the White Paper—I appreciate that it has just been published—they have the time to look at it in a way that convinces them that it demonstrates that openness.
The right hon. Lady raised a number of other issues. She used a phrase about slaying the myths of the past. One important aspect of the White Paper is that we have listened to the evidence. There is still more listening to do, which is why I said at the end of my statement that there is work to be done over the coming year to ensure that we engage with other political parties, devolved authorities, businesses and others. The starting point for that evidence was the work done by the Migration Advisory Committee, which is completely independent of Government. The MAC undertook a detailed report. It went to every part of the UK to listen and listen hard. It presented its evidence and we published that in full in September. Much of that—not exclusively—is reflected in the White Paper.
The right hon. Lady asked specifically about targets. We are committed to the Conservative party manifesto for this Parliament, but let me be clear: this is about the future immigration system. It is about emphasising control, but bringing net migration down to more sustainable levels. There are no targets in the White Paper.
I very much welcome the right hon. Lady’s support for the principle at the heart of the new system, which is that it is about an individual’s skills and what they have to contribute, not their nationality. There will be no preference to any particular nationality. To take her example, if a doctor or an engineer is coming to the UK it should not matter to us if that doctor or engineer is from India or France. What matters is what they have to contribute. That is at the heart of the proposals and she is right to highlight that principle.
The right hon. Lady asked me about salary thresholds. This is for the high-skilled worker route. The independent Migration Advisory Committee, based on its evidence, suggests a salary threshold of £30,000. What we have said is that we have listened, but that we need to do more work and have more extensive engagement before we come to a final figure. It will not be set in stone at £30,000 at this point. We will have to have more engagement to ensure that we get it right and come up with a threshold that we believe works for all parts of the UK.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the short-term workers route. One reason we included that in the White Paper is a recognition that, as we move away from freedom of movement, which I think all colleagues see as a very easy system to use with hardly any paperwork or bureaucracy involved, to a new system where everyone requires permission, it is right that we have a transition. The short-term workers scheme is a part of that transition, having a more balanced approach and recognising the needs of businesses across the country.
Lastly, the right hon. Lady talked about being open and welcoming, and about the Home Office learning lessons and changing its approach where appropriate. She will know that earlier this year we made changes to the tier 2 system, under the current immigration system, to remove doctors and nurses from the cap. She also rightly raised the Windrush crisis. All year, there has been a process to learn lessons from what went wrong. She is right to highlight that the Windrush problems began under a previous Government and continued under this Government. They should not have happened under any Government. It is right that we learn the lessons. Wendy Williams is working on an independent report. It will be a thorough independent report and she will go wherever she needs to to get to the evidence. That will be an important moment for us to all learn lessons.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Obviously, I have not had a chance to read the White Paper, but much of what he said today is moving in the right direction. I hope he agrees with me that one of the problems with discussing migration over the past two decades has been that any time it is mentioned, people immediately accuse those who ask about reducing it of being racist. We have to bring an end to that level of debate, which has led to much of the frustration to which the right hon. Member for Hackney North and  Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) referred earlier, about the way the debate has been conducted. As one of those who voted leave, it was clear to me throughout that people did not want an end to migration; what they wanted was controlled migration. That is what I hope my right hon. Friend delivers today.
As far as I can see, the core bit that has caused the greatest problem has been the immediate access to social security benefits for people coming from the European Union. That has caused a big problem. Many businesses have, I am afraid, abused the process, getting them to come in and live in often quite squalid conditions, driving wages down for those who have much higher costs. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to deal with that issue to make sure that that is not a way of bringing in cheap labour? When he gets lectured by businesses and by others who say the health service cannot cope, will he remind them that for the past two decades—[Interruption.] This is a very important point.

John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman’s point may be important, but it does need to be framed in the form of a question—briefly.

Iain Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that businesses have failed to invest in training and skilling the domestic population, with the result that only 15% of those who start life at entry level work will ever move beyond entry level work?

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for the points he raises. First, he is absolutely right to emphasise the need for control. That was clearly one of the messages of the referendum result. It is about control. Like any other major developed economy, there is no reason why Britain should not have control while also being fair in its approach to immigration. On access to benefits, the White Paper sets out—I appreciate he has not had the opportunity to look at it in any detail yet—that on the short-term workers route, for example, there will be no right to public benefits and no dependants’ rights. This is a system that many other countries have followed. It is a fair approach both to people who come to our country to work and to the domestic population.

Stuart McDonald: I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement and the Immigration Minister for taking the time to speak to me earlier today.
The proposals will make us all poorer economically, socially and in terms of opportunity. They signify not a “global Britain”, but an inward-looking Government and a Prime Minister still obsessed with net migration targets. When the Government talk about taking back control of our borders, what they mean is ripping up mutual rights to live, study, work and enjoy family life across Europe, depriving future generations of the amazing opportunities that our generations have enjoyed. Free movement has been brilliant for our people, and brilliant for Scotland and the UK, too.
When the Government talk about a skills-based system, they mean nothing of the sort. It is, to all intents and purposes, a salary-based system. We are talking about the carers, key NHS workers, lab technicians, researchers, bricklayers, and many other essential workers that this  country needs. So why are the Government intent on slashing the family, social security and settlement rights of workers coming here under that income threshold? The proposals are degrading for workers, bad for employers and bad for community cohesion.
Why is the Home Secretary intent on forcing businesses to endure the expense, red tape and dubious reliability of a Home Office immigration system, when free movement has worked perfectly well? This is the opposite of cutting bureaucracy. Will the Home Secretary confirm the revenue that this will cost the Treasury? Will he confirm what the analysis shows about lost growth to the economy?
Finally, these announcements will be utterly disastrous for Scotland—socially and economically. Has the Home Office modelled the effect they will have on Scotland’s population, economy and public finances? Does the Home Secretary seriously think that reducing EU migration to Scotland, possibly by over 80%, is a good thing? If this is the best the Government can do, there is no better illustration of why we need decisions on immigration to be in Scotland’s hands.

Sajid Javid: First, the hon. Gentleman claims that having one’s own immigration system and ending freedom of movement will make the country poorer. He should perhaps focus his attention on the number of other large developed countries—Australia, Canada, United States—that have their own independent immigration system. They are not poorer because of that. I do not think his logic follows at all.
The hon. Gentleman argues for continuing freedom of movement. He should cast his mind back to just over two years ago when the people of the United Kingdom voted to end it. Scottish citizens are members of the United Kingdom. They voted to end it. Lastly, he raises the issue of the salary threshold. When determining skill levels, it is perfectly reasonable that one of the factors to be taken into account is salary. It should not be based exclusively on that. If he cares to read the Migration Advisory Committee’s report from September, it will provide him with a lot more evidence for why this is a perfectly reasonable approach.

Damian Green: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He has addressed the central conundrum of immigration policy, which is how to ensure the necessary controls on the numbers while also attracting not just our fair share, but—preferably—more than our fair share of the brightest and the best from around the world to help our economy and our communities. One issue, however, which I hope he will address, is that some of the brightest and the best are not necessarily in high-paid professions. How will his new system deal with that? I am thinking in particular of sectors such as social care. We want the best and brightest people from around the world, but many in those sectors will probably not be earning over the salary threshold. How will we continue to attract those people?

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend, who speaks from experience as a former Immigration Minister. He asks a perfectly good question about how we can continue to attract the best and the brightest, especially if we are focused too rigidly on salary. One way we intend to do that in the new system is by taking a recommendation  from the Migration Advisory Committee on shortage occupation lists. We will take that further, make it more dynamic and responsive, and review it more regularly. That will allow us, as it does in the current non-EEA immigration system, but much more effectively, to set lower salary thresholds for shortage occupations.

Stephen Doughty: I will look very closely at what the Home Secretary has set out in the Immigration White Paper. We have heard many different stories about what it will include, but I am not sure we can entirely believe all of them, given the disputes we have seen between him and the Prime Minister.
I want to ask the Home Secretary a very specific question about immigration enforcement at our border in relation to no-deal planning. The permanent secretary of his Department told us on the Home Affairs Committee just a few weeks ago:
“It is not part of our contingency planning to deploy the armed forces.”
I pressed him on this, and he said again:
“It is not part of our no-deal planning that we would deploy the armed forces, for example, at the border.”
Was the permanent secretary misleading the Committee, or was it a surprise to the Department this morning when it was told that the Army could be deployed at the border for immigration enforcement and other purposes?

Sajid Javid: Of course, there is no-deal planning going on in the Home Office, as there is in every other Department. We do not expect it, but we need to plan for all contingencies. We are hiring more Border Force officers, and there will also be a taskforce, which is already being set up, and some of the new funding for those Border Force officers has already been announced. As for the use of soldiers, whether reservists or regulars, there is a broader plan—it is not part of the Home Office’s plan—to have up to 3,500 soldiers available for civil work as and when they are needed.

Andrew Mitchell: In my judgment, there is a great deal to welcome in the Home Secretary’s statement, but will he bear in mind that it is completely inappropriate to pinch doctors and medical staff from developing countries? It is a form of reverse aid and it is quite wrong. When it does happen, will he discuss with the International Development Secretary using part of the development budget to replace such staff on a two for one basis, and should we not grow the doctors and medical staff we need in Britain in Britain? In that context, should we not welcome the increase in the last year in the number of doctors trained from 6,000 to 7,500?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend, who speaks from experience, raises a very important point. Of course, we cannot control who makes an application to come to the UK, or who sponsors them, but still he raises a very important point about other ways of helping or reducing concern in this area. One way is certainly through our international aid budget. He raises a second issue about doing everything we can to train more doctors and nurses here in the UK.

Edward Davey: Will the Home Secretary accept that the Home Office and Border Force already struggle to cope and that over the next three years they will have to deal with 3 million extra cases of EU citizens? How does he expect them to cope with this new temporary worker visa scheme, which will involve tens of thousands of employers, many of them contacting the Home Office for the first time, with a 12-month churn of staff? Far from bringing back control, will this not bring chaos?

Sajid Javid: I will give three answers to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the settlement scheme for the 3 million-plus EU citizens, which he mentions, is being separately staffed—more staff will be hired as the scheme properly rolls out—and much of the extra funding has already been allocated. Secondly, we will make the best use of technology—for example, we are expanding e-gate usage to eight other nations, which will help a lot. Lastly, the new system does not actually come into place until 2021, which gives us more than enough time to prepare.

Justine Greening: I seek clarification on three points. First, the Home Secretary talked about this coming in from 2021. When exactly does he mean? Does he mean January? Secondly, can he confirm to employers in my constituency that in the meantime there will be no change to the existing processes, systems and forms they have to use for non-UK workers, whether under the EU or the non-EU worker schemes? Finally, if he is to have a year-long public consultation, that will take us into 2019, and then obviously the Government will want time to look at the results in 2020. Can he assure me that businesses in my community will not suddenly be given a cut-off point on the salary just months before a new system is introduced in 2021?

Sajid Javid: First, the plan is to introduce the new system from January 2021—so from the end of the implementation period. Of course, if that period is extended—this assumes a deal scenario—it could be later. My right hon. Friend asked for an assurance that there will not be any change to employer checks between now and when the system comes in. The changes here will only come in from 2021, so there will be no changes to employer checks, including for EU citizens. She also asked for an assurance that the salary threshold will not be set suddenly. We will make sure in our work that it is not a sudden change and that businesses have time to prepare.

David Lammy: The Home Secretary was right to pay tribute to his parents. His father, a bus driver, and my mother, who worked at Camden Town tube station, belong to a generation that took so little and gave so much. They were like today’s careworkers, security guards and fruit pickers. He knows that they did not earn anything like £30,000 in the prices of the ’70s and ’80s. How will he look his children in the eyes and say he slammed behind him the door of opportunity that enabled him and me to sit in our seats today?

Sajid Javid: The door was closed on my parents and people from those Commonwealth countries in 1968 by a Commonwealth citizenship Act brought in by a Labour Government—so it was a Labour Government who  closed that door. [Interruption.] This is important. It is important that the right hon. Gentleman has all the facts in front of him. Going forward, it is important that we continue to provide opportunities for people with multi-skill levels to come and help in the UK, to settle and to study, which is why we have presented a system here that is focused on high-skilled workers but which, as he will have heard me say earlier, also includes a short-term workers scheme, and there will be other routes as well.

Stephen Crabb: I understand my right hon. Friend’s emphasis on attracting high-skilled workers, but is it not true that in recent years the British economy has been thirsty for new labour at all skills levels and that we want that to continue? This is particularly true for those parts of the UK where the local population is getting older and where freedom of movement has been a really good and important thing. Will he please make an effort to take evidence from all parts of the UK so as to understand how the local skills and labour markets operate and to strike the right balance with our new policy?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend has emphasised the importance of listening to those in all parts of the United Kingdom and ensuring that the new system works for them all. In that regard, there is a commitment in the White Paper to consider, for example, extending the shortage occupation list to Wales. Scotland already has one, but Wales does not. That is just one demonstration of how we can ensure that the system works for every part of the UK.

Hilary Benn: The Home Secretary mentioned a streamlined application process for visitors. Can he confirm that the millions of visitors who come to this country from the EU every year will in future have to apply for, and receive, a visa or a visa waiver? If so, how much will it cost them?

Sajid Javid: Under the new system, all people entering the United Kingdom will require a form of visa or visa waiver. That will probably not start in 2021, because it will take longer to develop the system fully and introduce it. However, the electronic travel authorisation scheme, which I also mentioned in my statement, will apply to all visitors. The right hon. Gentleman asked about cost; we have not yet determined what the cost of the ETA scheme would be.

Kemi Badenoch: As a first-generation immigrant, I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I feel that the White Paper represents a move from the 20th century to a much better future immigration system. I especially thank the Home Secretary for removing the annual limits on work visas and on international students: I lobbied for both on behalf of the Wellcome Sanger Institute and Anglia Ruskin university, which serve my constituency. Will he elaborate on how removing the work visa cap in particular will give businesses certainty?

Sajid Javid: As my hon. Friend will know, under the current non-EEA system there is a cap of 20,700 a year, with some exemptions. The work of the Migration Advisory Committee has shown that such a cap is not in  our economic interests, and that it is far better to control numbers in other ways that are more reflective of economic needs. I think that removing the cap will lead to an economic boost, while also making it easier for students who have studied at our great universities to stay on if they can find a job at the right level. I think that that is very welcome too.

John Woodcock: The Home Secretary says that he will protect the rights of EU citizens who are currently here. Does that include the continued right to work even after they have left the country for a period before returning? The Home Secretary also says that he is against increased red tape. Will he therefore publish, as part of the consultation, a full impact assessment of the cost to the public purse and to businesses of whatever processes he sets up to implement the short-term visas?

Sajid Javid: Under the EU settlement scheme, there will be a requirement for plenty of time—two years—to be provided for individuals to register, however long they have been here. Even if they have been here for only a day, their rights will be guaranteed. My understanding is that once they have registered they will lose their rights if they leave for more than five years, but within that period there is no change.

Tim Loughton: This White Paper has been even more delayed than a Southern railway train, but at least it has arrived. I welcome many of the Home Secretary’s comments, but can he explain why, in view of the move to a skills-based system and shortage occupation measures, we still need a net migration target below 100,000 or any other figure, given that nothing can be done about one side of the equation in any case? Can he also confirm that he would prefer to remove students from that net migration figure altogether, given his welcome comments about students coming to this country to invent, innovate and employ?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend asked me very recently whether we would publish the White Paper before the meaningful vote, and we have. I think I told him that we would try our best.
My hon. Friend asked about targets. There are no targets in the White Paper; the system is designed to help to bring down net migration overall, but it sets no targets. As for the question of students, we continue to look at it, and I have asked the Migration Advisory Committee to do some more work.

Catherine West: The United Kingdom has a long tradition of observing the 1951 refugee convention. Are the Government currently minded to lift the ban on asylum seekers working in the UK?

Sajid Javid: We are committed to the 1951 convention, and I think that that commitment is shared across the House. As for the specific issue of work, it is one that we have been considering.

Desmond Swayne: What are the implications of the UN agreement on migration that we have signed in Marrakesh?

Sajid Javid: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is taking the lead on that, but as it is a completely non-legally binding agreement, there are no direct implications for the UK.

Pat McFadden: Immigration has benefited the UK, and the people who have come here, whether from Europe or from the rest of the world, have overwhelmingly come to work hard and make a positive contribution to this country. On the question of numbers, what is the Home Secretary’s estimate of the effect on immigration from the rest of the world of restricting immigration from the rest of Europe?

Sajid Javid: I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the benefits of immigration for the UK, and I hope he agrees that my statement made that clear, but when we talk about benefits it is important for us to take a more holistic look at the impact on the UK and at what is in our national interest. In some cases, low-wage labour from abroad cannot become a substitute for investment in the upskilling of domestic labour or for improvements in domestic productivity.

Edward Leigh: The Home Secretary will know that there is a dissonance between what liberal political establishments want and what the people want: that was made clear by the result of the referendum and the rise of right-wing populist parties in Europe. Can he convince the people that the subtle change of language from “tens of thousands” to “more sustainable levels” does not mean that he is no longer absolutely committed to controlling immigration? After all, many people wonder why, when he has been in charge of immigration from outside the EU, we have so palpably failed to control it. Does he realise that he must convince people that we have a strong immigration policy, because otherwise we will once again see the rise of a right-wing populist party in this country?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of the importance of control. One of the clear messages from the EU referendum was that people wanted to see control of our borders, and the new system will provide just that. Under this system, everyone who enters the UK will need permission, and that will give us a level of control that we have not had for four decades.

David Hanson: I welcome the announcement of the electronic travel authorisation scheme, because it was suggested by the Labour Front Bench of which I was part in 2011. How much does the Home Secretary believe the development costs of the scheme will be, and will he monitor people who are leaving as well as those who are entering?

Sajid Javid: First, the scheme will give us information about people entering and leaving. As for the costs, we have only just made a decision internally to proceed with the scheme. There will be further information as it becomes available.

Jeremy Lefroy: As a director—or a member—of the board of a university, I realise how much researchers from around the world contribute,   but their salaries are often relatively low. Will the Home Secretary consider not introducing a salary cap but concentrating on skills, given that skills and salaries do not often equate?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an important point; my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration was at the Francis Crick Institute this morning, and one of the things she was rightly hearing about was just this issue. In fact the Migration Advisory Committee has identified this issue as well; it has talked also about lab technicians, many of them working in our universities, and many of whom do not earn as much as £30,000. We are taking this point into account.

Chris Bryant: I find it terribly depressing that the Prime Minister is still sticking with this language of “tens of thousands”. It is completely undeliverable in relation to outside the EU let alone within the EU. In particular I am conscious that the Rhondda would never have been built if it had not been for miners coming from Ireland; we would never have had frothy coffee and ice cream if it had not been for the Italians who came to work in the mines; we would not have doctors keeping us healthy if it had not been for the Indian subcontinent; and today we would not have enough careworkers if it were not for people coming from Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Spain. So I hope the Home Secretary will manage to change the whole rhetoric and tone behind the Government’s approach to this, and can he also just tell us where exactly we have got to on tier 1 investor visas, which the Government announced they were going to suspend two weeks ago and then announced they were suspending the suspension six days later?

Sajid Javid: First, I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not mention in his list pakoras and samosas from India and Pakistan; I would have thought that would have been at the top of his list.

Chris Bryant: I am not a fan.

Sajid Javid: Well, I am. [Interruption.] And so are those on the Labour Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however, and I hope that as he has the time to look at the White Paper on the new immigration system he will see that it is still a demonstration of how this country is open to talent from across the world but with more control than we have had before, and of how we can do that in a way that brings net migration down to a more sustainable level, which is good for all our communities. It is important to have public confidence in the level of immigration. The hon. Gentleman also asked about tier 1 visas. They are still available as we speak, but we have set out a number of reforms that we need to put in place to make them more effective.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today as a sensible approach with a single system based on people’s skills. However, does he agree that post-Brexit we will need to attract the brightest and best from across the world to help meet the needs of our country and economy while also always being mindful of the pressures on our public services caused by population numbers?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend makes an important point: clearly, the higher the population of a country and the more it rises, the more pressure there is on public services. Some communities have seen a very rapid change in population, sometimes to do with high levels of migration to that community. We must keep that in mind; it was one of the reasons why so many people voted to have control of our immigration system, and we must balance that against the economic needs we have to meet through migration.

Thangam Debbonaire: I am heartbroken. This immigration Bill could have been an opportunity to show the world what an outward-looking nation we really are, and the proud tradition that we have of challenging racism in all its forms. Instead, it seems to be taking a very unhappy and unfortunate turn, with language such as “cooling-off” periods for people who come here to work. There is a global forced migration crisis, so why, on top of all the other things hon. Friends have mentioned, has the Home Secretary failed even to consider that this might have been an opportunity to reform the way this country responds to refugees?

Sajid Javid: I am not sure that the hon. Lady has read the same White Paper that I have.

Bob Blackman: It is absolutely right that the people of this country want to see a firm but fair immigration position, so what will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the rules are operated fairly not only for people coming from the EU, but, more importantly, for our Commonwealth partners, in particular from the Indian subcontinent?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises the important issue of fairness based on what someone has to contribute, rather than their nationality. During the referendum campaign many British citizens were concerned that family and friends in the Indian subcontinent and other parts of the British Commonwealth might not be getting the same treatment or access that others were getting because of the preference that existed through the freedom of movement system. That is changing under this new system, and, when all is taken into account, this system is much fairer in its approach by focusing on skills rather than nationality.

Lisa Cameron: The UK fashion and textile industry contributes £32 billion to the economy but it thrives on a global pool of talent. As chair of the all-party group on textile and fashion I have heard concerns from the industry about the impact of any new measures on freedom of movement. I am sure the Home Secretary would suit Katharine Hamnett’s new t-shirt stating “Fashion Hates Brexit”, but what will he do to reassure this valuable industry that it will remain accessible and open to international talent?

Sajid Javid: First, the hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of the fashion and textile industry and more generally our creative industries, where the UK is a powerhouse, and one of the things we need to do to keep it that way is make sure it can attract top talent from across the world. There is much in this White Paper  that will help to achieve that, and it is also an area where in some cases in the past we have looked at having special visas for entry, including for exhibitions and visitors, and we will continue to look at such things.

Douglas Ross: The short-term workers route mentioned in the statement will not address the issue that I and Members across the House have raised about access for non-EEA labour on inshore vessels. I have a constituent, Mr Scott in Lossiemouth, who fears he will have to sell his boat and his business unless the Government address this urgently. What can the Home Secretary do to address this issue for Mr Scott and others in Moray, Scotland and across the UK?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has perhaps raised two points: one is the future immigration system, where I think—I am happy to speak to him in detail about this afterwards—the short-term route can help address the issue he raises. I also detect a more immediate issue, however, that is not just for post-2021 and later, but is more immediate, because he mentioned non-EEA and I am also happy to discuss that with him, too.

Louise Ellman: The Home Secretary talks about fairness, but in reality the Home Office displays a combination of hostility and inefficiency. Families are split up because visas have been agreed but not issued, and in my local case a Liverpool doctor who has worked in this country for many years after being trained here is having to go back to her country of origin because of a failure in the Home Office. I am still seeking a meeting with Home Office Ministers on that case. Will the year-long conversation that the Home Secretary spoke about include discussing changing the attitude of the Home Office so people are treated fairly and within the rules?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised this important issue of fairness. The Home Office makes millions of immigration decisions, whether on visas or otherwise, each year and we cannot pretend that every single decision is going to be right. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) raised the issue of Windrush, which was a problem under successive Governments, and we need to learn the lessons from that, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) raised a live case from her constituency and the Minister for Immigration will be happy to meet her to discuss it.

Henry Smith: I welcome the proposal set out by the Home Secretary to have an immigration system that gets the best talent from around the world for our economy and public services. Will he also undertake to cover in this legislation the loophole of descendants from the British Indian Ocean Territory, whose rights have been abused for the best part of half a century?

Sajid Javid: I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue. He has championed it for a while and we have discussed it. It is not specifically addressed in the White Paper in terms of a future immigration system, but he is right to continue to raise the matter, and we are right to continue to work with him and to look at it.

Sammy Wilson: I welcome the assurance that those who are already living in the UK will have their rights protected. It is a great pity that the EU was prepared to use those people as a negotiating ploy in the negotiations. Given the cap of £30,000 suggested in the White Paper, what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that areas such as Northern Ireland will have access to labour from outside the United Kingdom if it is required, owing to skills shortages, to keep production going?

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the scheme for the 3 million-plus EU citizens living here, whether in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK. They are welcome to stay and indeed we need them to stay. I said earlier, and I say again that, whether we have a deal or no deal, that scheme and their rights will be protected. On the specific issue of Northern Ireland and regional shortages, we have in the White Paper committed for the first time to a separate shortage occupation list for Northern Ireland, which I think will make a big difference.

Stephen Metcalfe: I, too, visited the Crick Institute this morning and I am sure that it will welcome the White Paper, as I do. I particularly welcome the consultation on the minimum salary requirements because, as my right hon. Friend will know, scientists, researchers and particularly technicians, who contribute hugely to our economy, are not always rewarded in the most profitable way. Salary is not a proxy for skills. I know that my right hon. Friend gets that point, but we cannot say it too often.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has emphasised an important point. The logic of having a salary threshold is strong, but it is also right that we look at cases where that will not quite work. He has given the example of lab technicians, whose salaries can be around £21,000. There are a variety of ways of trying to deal with that in the White Paper and I hope that he will welcome them.

Stephen Timms: I am one of those who has valued free movement, but I welcome what the Home Secretary said today about overseas students. Is he in a position yet to offer any relief to those students—who he knows about—who had their visas cancelled after being accused, often wrongly, by an American firm of having cheated in their English language tests?

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. As he has pointed out, the White Paper makes it even easier for students, once they have completed their studies, to stay, to continue to contribute to the UK and to settle in the UK. On the specific issue, which I have discussed with him and other colleagues, we are still looking at this but we are taking it very seriously.

Rebecca Pow: I very much welcome the Secretary of State coming to give us this announcement today. I also welcome the fact that international students will still be allowed to come here to study, but there is no dedicated route for unskilled labour or for those earning below £30,000. How will the Department support employers in Taunton Deane—particularly in agriculture, tourism and the care industry—to get the labour that they need under the new system?

Sajid Javid: There are a couple of things that I can tell my hon. Friend. First, we want to try to get more international students to choose the UK and there are measures in the White Paper to do that. I know that the Department for Education takes this very seriously as well. Secondly, on the need for workers with different skills, especially those who might not be classed as high skills in the White Paper, I believe that the short-term workers route will make a big difference.

Kate Green: At a quick glance, I can find only two paragraphs, in chapter 6 of the White Paper, on self-employment. The Home Secretary will know how important that is, particularly in the construction sector, for filling gaps involving vital roles such as bricklayers, electricians and carpenters. Will it be possible for the industry or industry bodies to have some sort of umbrella sponsorship scheme to ensure that we can continue to recruit workers to those roles in order to meet the Government’s own growth and house building expansion plans?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has rightly raised this issue because she knows that many of the construction workers who are currently working on house building come under the freedom of movement rules and, once that changes, we will have to find a way to allow such workers still to come in to meet the needs of the economy. She asked specifically about umbrella sponsorship schemes and that is in the White Paper.

Steve Double: I welcome the statement from the Home Secretary. I also welcome this opportunity to set our own immigration policy for the first time in a generation and to ensure that it is fair, compassionate and meets the needs of our economy. However, the needs of our economy will change over time, and from region to region, so will he assure the House that flexibility will be built into our new immigration policy to enable it to respond to the needs of the economy across the whole of the UK, that it will not just be focused on the south-east and that it will meet the needs of places such as Cornwall?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. He rightly says that our needs will change over time and this is an immigration system that will be built for the future. It will have those flexibilities to meet the needs of our economy and our society. I give him one example. When we looked at the short-term workers scheme, we looked at the many needs of the economy, including, in Cornwall, the needs of the hospitality industry and the seasonal nature of much of that demand. So I can happily give him that assurance.

Alison Thewliss: I have the highest immigration caseload in Scotland, and what I see from the Home Office is cruelty, time and time again. Families are being separated, and the relatives of people who have lost babies are not being allowed to come to visit them. A man is working two jobs, as a mortgage adviser and a shelf stacker in Asda, just to meet the minimum income threshold so that his family can come to see him. I have also seen cruelty towards people who are qualified to work in the care industry but not allowed to work by the Home Office and by this Government. Is it not the case that under this policy EU nationals will be treated just as despicably and cruelly as non-EU nationals are at the moment?

Sajid Javid: I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Lady has painted, and the answer is no.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the statement. Will the Secretary of State explain how his electronic travel authorisation scheme will work in the common travel area, especially where a visitor arrives in Dublin and travels on to the UK from there? Would that visitor need to get authorisation in that situation?

Sajid Javid: This will not apply to Irish citizens and British citizens moving within the common travel area. My hon. Friend will know that the EU is planning to introduce a similar scheme; I think it is called ETIAS—the European travel information and authorisation system. As we develop this, we are looking at ways of working together.

Karen Buck: Can the Secretary of State confirm that a chapter is closing during which millions of Britons have been able to live freely across Europe and to work, start businesses and begin relationships there, in the same way that European citizens have been able to do in this country? I speak as someone whose constituency has one of the highest proportions of EU citizens. The British Government will want to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement with Europe, which is our largest and closest trading partner, so does he agree that there will need to be further concessions on migration, or is the White Paper establishing a set of red lines that will also determine our trade policy?

Sajid Javid: In the White Paper, we have set out flexibility for the UK in terms of mobility to strike trade deals around the world. With many countries, including the EU, there is often a need to look at mobility arrangements, especially for the service industries, and what we have set out here is perfectly compatible with the future political framework document that has been set out by the Government. Also, as we look to do trade deals with other countries further afield, this document will provide the flexibility that we need.

Matt Warman: Largely unskilled agricultural migration has seen Boston’s population change by about a third in the past 10 years, but we have been unable to attract the doctors and professionals we need to cope with increased demand, and the consequences for community cohesion have been genuinely tragic. It led directly to the highest vote to leave the European Union in the referendum. When we get immigration policy wrong, it is a disaster for communities and individuals, so this new policy is long overdue. I ask the Home Secretary to take the year that he has built in to ensure that we get it right, because that is the only way we will undo some of the damage that has been done by the policies of previous Government, of all colours.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, highlighting that when we make immigration policy we must consider not just economic need, but the pace and volume of immigration. He gives an excellent example of a community that has seen dramatic change in a short period, and of the impact on local infrastructure and public services. It is very important to get the balance right.

Adrian Bailey: Many Black Country foundries, which are crucial to the supply chains for civil aviation and the motor industry, are sustained by EU recruits, because they have an ageing workforce and cannot recruit locally. What conversations has the Home Secretary had with the industry on the impact of the short-term visa requirements on the future availability of EU migrants and the potential impact on businesses?

Sajid Javid: I will make two points in answer to that. First, all the EU citizens who are already here, whether they work in those foundries or elsewhere, will be able to stay—and we want them to stay—so there should be no change in the current EU workforce. Secondly, with regard to the high-skilled workers scheme and the short-term workers scheme set out in the White Paper, we have already engaged with business groups, but I have set out today that there will be much more such engagement, with business in every region across the country, before the schemes are finalised, especially in relation to thresholds and cooling-off periods.

David Duguid: I welcome the Government’s commitment to giving priority to those workers who have the skills we need. I also welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement today of a year-long programme of engagement across the UK. May I therefore extend an invitation to him, and indeed to my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, to visit Banff and Buchan, an area of very low unemployment, to talk to businesses to see for themselves the specific skills that are much needed in the fisheries sector, both for catching offshore and for processing onshore, and that can be sourced not just from the EU, of course, but from across the world, including Africa and east Asia?

Sajid Javid: I am sure that the Immigration Minister and I would both like to visit, although not necessarily at the same time, so we are happy to receive that invitation. My hon. Friend makes an important point that relates to many parts of the UK, but particularly to Scotland—many other colleagues from Scotland have raised it—and it is important to look at that. I think that the system we have set out today will have the flexibility to meet those needs, but I am happy to discuss those with him further.

Wes Streeting: Immigration, whether from Europe or from right around the world, has made an enormously positive difference to my community and to our country, making us rich in every way imaginable. However, given that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are evident proof that being highly paid and highly skilled are not the same thing, why do the Government persist with this nonsense of a £30,000 cap to define what constitutes highly skilled? Plenty of people in this country are paid far less than the Home Secretary, and far less than £30,000, and it would be an absolute tragedy to pull up the drawbridge for them, not just denying them opportunity, but denying our country the skills and prosperity we need.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is clearly lobbying for a pay rise for all members of the Cabinet—I will leave that to him, but it is not something the Cabinet is asking for. It is important that the threshold for the highly skilled visa route set out in the White Paper is  based on evidence and works for each part of the country. The MAC has suggested—I emphasise that this is based on its own independent research—that the threshold should be £30,000, but further work and extensive engagement with businesses, devolved authorities, Members of Parliament and others is required to determine what that should actually be.

Alison McGovern: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) actually wanted a pay cut for members of the Cabinet. I had thought that the Home Secretary was a free marketeer, but what he has given us today is a bureaucrats charter to increase paperwork and red tape around business. The White Paper states, on page 47:
“The MAC has recommended lowering the skills threshold for the new skilled workers…while maintaining the minimum salary threshold of £30,000.”
This is clearly not a skills-based immigration policy, but a money-based immigration policy. Will he therefore explain how on earth he thinks our country plans to deal with its demographic challenge?

Sajid Javid: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s assertions. She suggests that somehow this will lead to more bureaucracy and red tape, but having no cap and no resident labour market test for high-skilled workers and more use of e-gates are all examples of where there will be less bureaucracy and less red tape.

Pete Wishart: This is just a Faragist blueprint for drawbridge Britain, a grotesque plan simply to keep people out of this country. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to be absolutely straight with the British people that their freedom of movement will come to an end? What we do to the EU, it will do to us, and all the unrestricted rights that we have had, to live, work and love across a community of 27 nations, will be lost to our young people forever. Is that not an absolute tragedy and shame?

Sajid Javid: The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. That means the end of freedom of movement.

Owen Smith: The Home Secretary rightly said in his statement that the UK has a proud history of being an open and welcoming country, so it must sadden him, as it saddens me, that that reputation is being consigned to history by his Government. This White Paper is one further policy that will damage that reputation. He also said that this policy will boost our economy, but that seems deeply implausible, given that EU migrants made a net contribution to this country, and a total contribution of almost £5 billion last year. If it is true, he must have worked it out, so can he tell us by exactly how much he think this will boost our economy?

Sajid Javid: I do not accept that analysis. What the White Paper does is ensure that we will remain an open and welcoming country to talent and people, for whatever reason they choose to come to the UK, from around the world. The proof of that is that we are, for example, removing caps, making is easier for students to stay and  work in the UK, and making it easier for people from around the world to visit the UK. That is an example of an open and welcoming country.

Andrew Slaughter: More than 20% of my constituents are EU27 citizens and more than 40% were born outside the UK. I value their contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of Hammersmith, of London and of the UK. I would like to hear the Secretary of State join me in saying that, because the hostile environment fostered by his Government and by the coalition Government has created alienation, fear and distrust for very many migrants.

Sajid Javid: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming and commending all the EU citizens in his constituency, in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom. I have said a number of times, and it is self-evident, that they have made a huge contribution to the success of our country not just economically, but in our society and our communities. In many cases they are members of our family. That is why I would like them all to stay.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The proposed salary threshold is £30,000. Average annual pay in Wales is £27,000, compared with £37,000 in London. Wales will be left with a skills crisis that is impossible to remedy unaided. Can the Home Secretary assure Welsh businesses and communities by confirming now that Wales deserves a specific shortage occupation list and by saying when it will come into effect?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of regional differences. The system will take account of that in various ways. One example specific to Wales is a commitment in the White Paper to look at a shortage occupation list for Wales.

Paul Blomfield: The Home Secretary owes my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) an apology for the way in which he brushed aside her question. He made no reference to refugees in his statement. I have now had an opportunity to scan the relevant section of the White Paper, and it is peppered with words such as “maintain,” “continue” and “no change.” If my hon. Friend is wrong, will the Home Secretary spell out exactly how this White Paper proposes to improve the way we receive and treat refugees?

Sajid Javid: The White Paper is a result of the referendum result, which means no to freedom of movement.

Paul Blomfield: Answer the question.

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance, I will answer his question. The vote to leave means that we will have a new immigration system. The Government commissioned work from the Migration Advisory Committee to consider what the system should look like, by removing freedom of movement, and how we will get the skills we need. It is very focused on skills; it is not focused on the issue of refugees and any changes. Nor do we have to wait for any changes that may or may not be made in terms of refugees. For example, there have been a number of changes in recent months and  years on unaccompanied children and other cases, such as the Syrian White Helmets. Such decisions do not have to wait for a new immigration system. We are perfectly capable of making those decisions now under the current system.

Gavin Robinson: I thank the Home Secretary for listening to the representations that I have made on behalf of my party as its home affairs spokesperson, and that my party’s leader and parliamentary leader have made, in respect of the income threshold. Just as average pay in Wales is £27,000, in Northern Ireland it is £24,500. The MAC report is wrong to suggest that there should be a one-size-fits-all income threshold. In going to consultation, it sounds as if the Home Secretary agrees with it, but will he give serious consideration, during the consultation and following the outcome of the process, to regional variations that reflect our regional differences?

Sajid Javid: As the hon. Gentleman highlights, it is important that we look at regional differences. One way of trying to accommodate such differences is through a shortage occupation list, and we have committed here today that Northern Ireland will have its own shortage occupation list. As we have referenced in the White Paper, I am also conscious that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has a land border with the EU, which causes other issues that also need to be looked at. We will certainly take that into account, too.

Stella Creasy: Page 8 of the White Paper retains the notion that there should be targets in our immigration system, including an objective number of people who can come, rather than recognising the need to look at skills. I encourage the Home Secretary to resist continuing this pointless exercise in targets and, instead, to look at issues in our public services and our NHS.
We have a nursing shortage of 100,000, and the nursing starting salary is £23.000. Since the Government cancelled the nursing bursary, the number of people training to be nurses in this country has dropped by 13%. When he looks at immigration and at salary levels, will he look at them in the round of our economy and our public services, and not take lessons from Conservative Members and the cutting of our international aid agencies? Will he instead recognise that a country that is spending £1.4 billion on agency fees for nurses within the NHS really needs to rethink how it treats the people who treat us best?

Sajid Javid: I always listen carefully to what hon. Members, businesses, hospitals and others have to say. The hon. Lady mentions nurses, and an example in relation to nurses—and doctors, for that matter—is the change we made earlier this year to the current tier 2 scheme to take doctors and nurses out of the cap altogether. That decision was welcomed by the sector. She may also know that nurses are currently on the shortage occupation list, which shows just how seriously the Government take this issue.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) asked the Prime Minister directly at Prime Minister’s questions if she still stands behind the ludicrous policy of cutting  net migration to the tens of thousands. If the White Paper—admittedly it is a White Paper—is fully implemented in legislation, what conclusions has the Home Office come to on the resulting level of net migration?

Sajid Javid: The commitment of the White Paper and of the system it represents is to bring net migration down to a more sustainable level.

Jo Stevens: Average earnings in Wales are, in fact, less than £26,500 a year, so does the Home Secretary recognise the damage that his policy will do to the Welsh economy? I ask him please not to tell me about a shortage occupation list, because that list will extend from one end of this Chamber to the other.

Sajid Javid: I believe the system will work for all parts of the UK. I do not recognise the point that it will do damage to the Welsh economy, which would be the wrong conclusion to draw from the system. I had a discussion this morning with the First Minister of Wales in which we went through the White Paper in a bit more detail. Obviously the First Minister needs to look at it more carefully, and I am happy to sit down with him and with hon. Members who represent Wales to discuss it further.

Brendan O'Hara: Will the Home Secretary confirm that, in preparing this White Paper, careful cognisance was given to the needs of every part of the United Kingdom? That being so, can he explain exactly what part the rural west of Scotland—a fragile, low-wage economy in an area that desperately needs more people—played in shaping his thinking?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about making sure the White Paper works for all parts of the UK, which is why in preparing it my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister held roundtables with business, for example, and had other forms of engagement in every part of the UK, including Scotland. I have had extensive engagement with Scottish Conservative Members, who have taken a deep interest in this. [Interruption.] I am happy to listen to the hon. Gentleman and others, and together we can make sure that, as we finalise them, the plans set out in the White Paper work for all parts of the UK.

Emma Hardy: I am sure the Home Secretary is fully aware of the recruitment crisis and the huge number of shortages in many of our schools. I am sure he is also fully aware that the starting salary for teachers is only £23,000, so will he look at lowering the £30,000 threshold to ensure that our children have the expert teachers they desperately need?

Sajid Javid: The White Paper makes it clear that we have committed to ensuring that, when it is set, the threshold is right for the needs of all parts of the country, whether it is our schools or otherwise. It is also important we make sure we have an immigration system that also incentivises domestic employers to invest in the skills of local people. Immigration should never be thought of as a substitute for investment in local people.

Gavin Newlands: The Home Secretary’s boss, the Prime Minister, talks proudly of ending free movement once and for all, in complete denial of the fact that free movement has been one of the biggest sources of opportunity for UK citizens in the past quarter of a century. Let us be in no doubt: this White Paper is not being taken forward in Scotland’s name. This statement highlights exactly why we have asked, time and again, for immigration powers to be devolved. Will the Government have a rethink and devolve immigration powers to the Scottish Parliament? We voted to remain, and we want no piece of this whatsoever.

Sajid Javid: Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and we have a single immigration policy for the entire UK.

Janet Daby: The majority of my constituency casework is about immigration. People are experiencing so many different levels and different types of delays, and I am not convinced that through this White Paper we will be able to deal with the level of bureaucracy involved in managing the resulting immigration. I am also very concerned about the one-year visas, as well as about the five-year visas, because they will affect the workforce who are here and will affect people’s livelihoods in terms of their security and investing in the UK.

Sajid Javid: On bureaucracy and red tape, we have tried to develop an immigration system that takes advantage of the latest technology—it is much more digital. We have taken a much closer look at how other countries that have long had a completely independent immigration have done that. We have also made a commitment to reduce the overall net burden on all businesses, taken together. By having this approach, we will end up reducing red tape, not increasing it.

Paul Sweeney: As for many Members of this House, the majority of my casework is taken up with immigration matters. I was alarmed that the Secretary of State did not mention anything about the appalling practice of indefinite immigration detention in his statement. That practice is a shameful stain on our country’s reputation; the UK is the only country in Europe that does it without limit. It is appalling and it should be ended immediately, without any sort of reservation. We need to stop it. My constituent Duc Nguyen was detained, despite being a trafficking victim, and was moved arbitrarily around the UK to avoid his obtaining proper legal representation and legal aid. It is not right. It is shameful. It is an affront to every sense of justice and mercy in this country. Will the Home Secretary commit to ending the arbitrary, indefinite immigration detention system in this country immediately?

Sajid Javid: We should always be looking to make sure we are doing everything we can to improve how we approach detention in this country. We do not have a policy of indefinite detention; no one can be detained unless there is a reasonable prospect of a removal in a reasonable time. Some 90% of people who are detained are released or removed within four months. One reason we have now commissioned two independent reports on the detention system is to look at ways in which we can  make improvements. For example, one of the recent things I have started is a pilot scheme to look at alternatives to detention for people who otherwise would have been kept at Yarl’s Wood.

Daniel Zeichner: I think we all know that the £30,000 salary cap fudge is just a political cop-out. The message from the science and research sector around Cambridge could not be clearer: please do not use salary levels as a proxy for skills. The University of Cambridge has warned that extending the non-EEA system would significantly harm the UK’s competitiveness. I realise that the Home Secretary is constrained by the intransigence in the Downing Street bunker, but could he at least, as Home Secretary, recognise just how important this issue is to the science and research sector?

Sajid Javid: One reason why Britain is outstanding at science and research is that we welcome talent from across the world, and that will not change with the new immigration system. When it comes to talent employed in our universities—I used the example of lab technicians earlier, because it was one that the MAC used in its report—it is important to recognise that salary does not always determine skill level, and that will be taken into account in the new system. Many students who come to study at our great universities study sciences, engineering and other subjects, where we have a shortage in this country, and we should be making it easier for them to stay and work in the UK if that is what they choose to do. This White Paper does just that.

Carol Monaghan: First, I wish to say that immigration has been fabulous for Scotland. The Home Secretary has said repeatedly that this White Paper is skills-based. Could he therefore give us a definition of what “high-skilled, “medium-skilled” and “low-skilled” occupations are, possibly with an example to illustrate each?

Sajid Javid: In looking at skills we have been led by the evidence and an objective analysis, and the MAC has set that out. Skill levels have been defined, having looked at the regulated qualifications framework levels of skill, which are well defined already. The MAC has also suggested, rightly, that we take other factors into account, and we have had discussion in the House today about salary thresholds and how we will look at that issue further. There is also a multi-skilled route, so it is not linked to any qualification or salary, and that is the short-term workers scheme.

Ruth Cadbury: People from non-EU countries and their families, including many of my constituents, have borne the brunt of the Home Office’s hostile environment, so they were very receptive to the targeted message to them from the leave campaign in the referendum saying that if we left the EU, the UK would free up non-EU immigration. Naturally, many local people bought that message. So was there any truth in that message? Or will there be just as many unreasonable refusals for EU citizens in the future as there have been up to now for non-EU citizens?

Sajid Javid: First, may I gently remind the hon. Lady that the term “hostile environment” in the Home Office was coined by Labour Ministers. It was a Labour Government policy, to the extent that it was ever a policy. I would be interested to see what she had to say about the policy at that time. She has asked me specifically about non-EU migration. What this White Paper does with the new system is achieve a much fairer view of that and a much better balance, levelling the playing field by looking at people’s skills and what they have to offer this country, rather than at their nationality.

Rachel Maclean: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: I hope this point of order relates directly to the statement from the Home Secretary. Otherwise, it should come after the statement on Yemen.

Rachel Maclean: It relates directly to exchanges in the Chamber from very much earlier. It is a matter of extreme urgency—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I will take those points of order afterwards. The course of action being taken has been made clear, so I ask the hon. Lady to make her point of order after the next statement.

YEMEN

Jeremy Hunt: Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a statement on the quest for a political settlement to the war in Yemen.
Last week, the Houthi rebels and the Government of Yemen held their first direct peace talks since 2016. The negotiations in Stockholm reached agreement on a ceasefire in the port city of Hodeidah and a mutual redeployment of forces, monitored by the United Nations. As we look forward to Christmas, the people of Yemen are enduring one of the gravest humanitarian crises in the world. Hunger and disease are ravaging large areas of the country: 420,000 children have been treated for malnutrition; as many as 85,000 have starved to death. Today, 24 million Yemenis, more than 85% of the population, need help. Behind these stark, impersonal numbers lie real people—individual men, women and children—with hopes and aspirations no different from our own. Their ordeal is not the result of natural disaster or misfortune; this is a man-made calamity, imposed by a war that has torn the country apart and reduced its people to penury, hence the imperative need to resolve this conflict as rapidly as possible.
From the beginning, Britain has made every effort to promote a political solution. Last month, I travelled to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which lead the coalition fighting to restore Yemen’s legitimate Government. I later visited Iran, which supports the Houthi rebels. In every capital, I urged my counterparts to use all their influence to help bring their parties to the negotiating table. After my visit to the region, agreement was reached for 50 wounded Houthis to be evacuated from Yemen to Oman, a confidence-building measure intended to pave the way for peace talks. On 19 November, I instructed our mission at the United Nations to circulate a draft resolution to the Security Council, reinforcing the need for a political settlement and demanding the unhindered flow of food and medicine throughout Yemen.
On 6 December, the peace talks began in Stockholm, mediated by Martin Griffiths, the UN special envoy. Last Wednesday, I went to Stockholm, and the following day I met the leaders of both delegations. I was the first British Minister to meet representatives of the Houthis. I urged the parties to seize the opportunity to reach agreements that would ease the suffering of the Yemeni people and move closer to the goal of ending the war. Last Thursday, the talks concluded with an agreement for the parties to meet again in January and to build trust by releasing thousands of prisoners.
Members will note the importance of the agreement on a ceasefire and redeployment in Hodeidah. The port is a lifeline for Yemen and the channel for at least 70% of the country’s food imports. The ceasefire in Hodeidah port and city came into effect at midnight yesterday, and the UN special envoy has reported that it seems to be working. If the ceasefire continues to hold and the UN succeeds in increasing the volume of traffic through the port, that should reduce the level of suffering. I have urged all parties to stick to the terms agreed last week in Stockholm so that we can find a lasting political solution to this devastating conflict.
After the talks, I spoke about the next steps to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Earlier, I discussed the situation with Secretary Pompeo of the United States. Based on those consultations and the success of the peace talks, I have instructed our mission in New York to resume work on a draft resolution with our Security Council partners, with a view to adopting it later this week. We will ask the Security Council to vote on the draft within the next 48 hours. The UK text aims to build on the momentum generated in Stockholm by endorsing the agreements reached between the parties, authorising the UN to monitor their implementation and setting out urgent steps to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Our aim is to mobilise the collective weight of the UN behind the progress that that been made.
I am grateful to Martin Griffiths for his dogged efforts, which are nothing short of heroic. I acknowledge the seriousness of purpose of those in the delegations from both sides whom I met in Stockholm last week. I offer my thanks to the British diplomats, both in the region and at the Foreign Office in London, who have worked assiduously behind the scenes to bring the parties together. Britain has been able to play this role because of our network of friendships—including our partnership with Saudi Arabia and the UAE—and because we are a country that will always step up to its responsibilities.
Although the House can draw encouragement from recent events, I do not wish to give false hope. The positive steps that we have seen could easily be reversed. The ceasefire is highly fragile. Many complex and difficult problems have yet to be addressed, let alone resolved. The people of Yemen still carry an immense burden of suffering, and although we can see some light at the end of the tunnel, we should be in no doubt that Yemen is still very much in the tunnel. For as long as necessary, this country will continue to use all the diplomatic and humanitarian tools at our command to help to settle this terrible conflict. Our values demand no less. I commend this statement to the House.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Foreign Secretary, not just for advance sight of his statement but for the attention he has devoted to the Yemen cause since he came to office. Many of us have spent countless hours in this House over the past three years debating how to end this dreadful conflict and the appalling suffering of the Yemeni people. We all appreciate the time, effort and focus that the Foreign Secretary has brought to addressing this conflict over the past five months, alongside the Minister for the Middle East. We thank them for that. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute not only to Martin Griffiths but to Mark Lowcock for the excellent work that they have done, in incredibly difficult circumstances, in trying to forge a path to peace and a path to the end of this humanitarian crisis. They are both living proof of the old truth that our British diplomats do their job not just because it is a career but because it is a vocation. We owe them a great debt for that service.
Over the past three years, there have been precious few moments of hope in relation to Yemen. This is indeed a moment of hope, and one that we must seize, so I want to use the time I have today to ask the Foreign Secretary about the next steps in this process. First, I greatly welcome his confirmation that a resolution is to be tabled this week at the UN Security Council, to underpin this ceasefire and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. Will he give us his assessment, based on his talks, of whether the United States stands ready to support the resolution this time around? Will he also address the crucial issue of what mechanisms there will be to monitor compliance by all sides with the terms of the resolution? What penalties or sanctions are proposed for any breach of those terms?
Secondly, I think that we all warmly welcome the appointment of General Cammaert to oversee the logistics and security of the operation in Hodeidah. Someone of his experience and toughness is ideally suited to what we all recognise will be an incredibly difficult task. Will the Foreign Secretary give us more details on how the security operation on the ground will be staffed? What is the thinking behind the decision that it should not be an armed blue-helmets operation? Will that decision be kept under review should General Cammaert decide that that is what is required once he is on the ground?
Thirdly, we have spoken previously about the fact that the ceasefire agreement will apply initially only to Hodeidah. We all understand that that is the most urgent priority in tackling the humanitarian crisis, but will the Foreign Secretary tell us what the proposed next steps are in brokering a wider ceasefire in other areas of the conflict, including Taiz, and, indeed, in brokering a wider political settlement for the whole country, including southern Yemen?
Fourthly, this is another issue that we have discussed previously, but I am sure that we all believe it is an important principle. In Yemen, as in Syria, while the immediate priority is to foster the hope of peace and get humanitarian aid to those in desperate need, we must also ensure that there is proper accountability for all alleged breaches of international humanitarian law committed by both sides in the conflict. That can happen only when we have a comprehensive, independent, UN-led investigation into all those alleged crimes. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether such an investigation is proposed in the UN resolution to be tabled this week? If not, what are the proposed next steps on that front?
Finally, there is another important principle that it would be easy to sweep under the carpet at this time, when we are keen to keep Saudi Arabia on board with the ceasefire and get its support for the proposed UN resolution. However, I hope the Foreign Secretary will agree that it would be manifestly wrong if Saudi Arabia were able to trade its compliance with ending the conflict in Yemen for the world turning a blind eye to the question of who was responsible for ordering the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Tomorrow, it will be 80 days since he was murdered. In Washington, the CIA has given evidence to Senators that led those Senators to conclude overwhelmingly that Crown Prince bin Salman ordered the murder of Mr Khashoggi, yet in this Parliament we are still waiting for any official conclusion from the Foreign Office or the security services on who was responsible. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear  today that the issues of peace in Yemen and accountability for the murder of Mr Khashoggi are entirely separate? Will he tell us when he will present his conclusions on the latter?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for the constructive tone of her comments and for crediting Mark Lowcock and his team at the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs for the very important role that they are playing at the moment. Indeed, it is important to say that the draft text of the Security Council resolution that the UK is putting together puts as much emphasis on the humanitarian aspects of this terrible conflict as it does on the peace talks in Stockholm, very much because of Mark Lowcock’s specific and important requests.
Let me go through the points that the right hon. Lady makes in order. First, I am confident that we have US co-operation in the process of tabling the Security Council resolution. We have had extensive discussions with the US, as well as with all the other sides in this terrible war. I am speaking to Secretary Pompeo later this afternoon, and this will be one of the things that we discuss in detail.
The right hon. Lady asks about the mechanism to monitor compliance. She is absolutely right that General Cammaert and his team of monitors will be essential. They are due to arrive in Hodeidah on Saturday. Their monitoring of what is going on is only made possible by having a UN Security Council resolution, which is why people have come together to make the passing of the resolution possible.
The draft resolution will require weekly report backs by the Secretary-General to the Security Council based on General Cammaert’s evidence as to whether we have compliance with what was agreed in Stockholm. She is right that that is extremely important. She is also right to say that it is not just Hodeidah. The draft statement talks about the other ports—Saleef and Ras Isa—that are extremely important, but, of course, what we actually need is peace in the whole country. Hodeidah is strategically the most important place to start with, because if we can open up the road between Hodeidah and the capital Sana’a, then we can start to get humanitarian supplies in. The Stockholm talks gave a three-week period, starting from midnight last night, by when that road, the port and the city of Hodeidah have to be cleared of all combatants, and that is what we are holding our breath for.
On accountability, I have the draft wording of the resolution here. First, it underlines the obligation on all parties to act in accordance, at all times, with principles of international humanitarian law. It also underlines the need for transparent, credible and timely investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law and for those found responsible to be held to account.
The right hon. Lady also raised the issue of Khashoggi. She is absolutely right that these are separate issues and that they cannot be linked, and I do give her that reassurance. As far as the UK Government are concerned, the issue of Khashoggi is not closed. We do not think that all the facts have been established and we have not seen proper conclusions from the Turkish investigation as to what actually happened. As soon as we have those conclusions, we will share them with the House.

Andrew Mitchell: It is a real relief in the terrible catastrophe that is the Yemen today to strongly support the actions taken by the Foreign Secretary in going to Stockholm, Tehran and Riyadh and in trying to win the confidence of both sides. May I also thank him for his absolutely accurate remarks about Sir Mark Lowcock, head of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, who was my permanent secretary, and about the superb work that has been done by Martin Griffiths? There are, of course, 10 million Yemenis on the brink of starvation this Christmas. I urge him to ensure that the new UN resolution is genuinely even-handed and condemns violence from all sides, whether Houthi missiles fired at Riyadh or Saudi bombing of built-up areas. If it is not even-handed, there is a grave danger that it will prejudice the next round of negotiations in January.

Jeremy Hunt: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing interest in what has been happening in Yemen? He is one of the few Members of this House who has actually met the Houthi leadership and he has enormous experience. I thank him for continuing to raise this issue even when it was not high up everyone else’s agenda. He is absolutely right about the importance of this UN resolution being balanced. It does indeed refer to the issue of Iranian missiles being fired into Saudi Arabia from Yemen. However, the way that we will be able to unite all sides behind this resolution is to focus on what was agreed at Stockholm and also on the humanitarian needs of the people of Yemen. We should not—if I can put it this way—go into too much detail about the causes of the conflict, which inevitably become more controversial. What we are trying to do at this stage is to build up the trust on both sides so that the fighting stops.

Stephen Gethins: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I, too, wish to put on record our thanks to him and to his officials for their ongoing work. I know that this a crucial few weeks coming up. I particularly wish to put on record our thanks to Martin Griffiths and Michael Lowcock for their work, which underscores the importance of multilateral agencies such as the United Nations.
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his tone, which he has used in previous statements, about the recognition of the acute humanitarian disaster that has unfolded. We must seize the opportunity for peace. Will he tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that aid reaches those who are most in need and who are worst affected, because that will be important in these coming weeks.
Furthermore, peacebuilding requires long-term investment—I know that he and his officials recognise that—and we know that from conflicts elsewhere. We continue to be concerned that arms sales to combatants in this conflict far outstrip aid. I am also concerned  that we often hear from the Foreign Secretary—I hope that he takes this criticism in the tone in which it is meant—that arms sales means influence, but if we look at some of the key influencers elsewhere, they have stopped arms sales. I am talking about Canada, Germany and, more recently, Spain. Will he tell us, as we go into these crucial few weeks, why the UK is different? Will he reassess that approach to arms sales, as the UK is  increasingly isolated in this regard? May I finally welcome the wording? The question of accountability is incredibly important, and that wording is good progress. I also welcome his remarks about Khashoggi, but I would like to hear his reflections on the US Senate findings and his reassurances, again, that he will make a full statement to the House when those findings are clear.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me take those issues. First, on the humanitarian side, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East met the International Committee of the Red Cross yesterday to make sure that we are fully briefed. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are the second largest bilateral donor—I think we gave £170 million in the past year alone to help the conflict in Yemen—so we treat the issue very seriously. In terms of what specifically we are doing, the main issue is opening up the road between Hodeidah and the capital Sana’a. That is why a major focus of these talks has been to get that corridor opened. That is very, very challenging, but we did succeed in that. We did not succeed in getting the airport in Sana’a opened, which was a disappointment, because we could not get agreement on which flights would be allowed to go from that airport, but that is something that we hope to do.
There is something that I did not mention in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, but that is relevant to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The next step is to try to get the parties back round the table for another round of peace talks at the end of January. That will be to discuss the framework for a political settlement. The idea is that this is the first step that builds up confidence between both sides and allows the fighting to stop, and then we can move towards the political settlement.
On the arms embargos, we have a process that was set up by the previous Labour Government in 2000, which I think we have to follow. It is one of the strictest processes in the world and it means that we independently look at whether there is a risk of a violation of international humanitarian law. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, the draft wording of the UN Security Council resolution does emphasise the legally binding obligation on all member states to comply with the arms embargo imposed by resolution 2216, and, as I mentioned before, the obligation on all parties to act at all times in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Thomas Tugendhat: May I pay tribute to the Foreign Office Ministers assembled here today for the amount of work that they have put in? I am talking about not just the Secretary of State himself and the Minister for the Middle East, but the Minister for Europe and the Americas who has done an awful lot of diplomacy here with our allies. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) whose attention to detail in the Yemen matter has been second to none. May I also, unusually, pay tribute to the shadow Foreign Secretary who, again, has conducted herself with dignity and who has been extremely rigorous in her questioning and helpful in her argument? What we are dealing with here is an horrific humanitarian disaster that we have seen emerge over past years. Am I right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done an   awful lot of work in getting to the peace talks, but that the next stage is what we are looking at? Yes, of course, there is the monitoring, but then there is also the confidence building, and that will come by the delivery of aid, by the visible progress on the ground and by the actual success that comes to both parties from the achievement of peace. Can my right hon. Friend perhaps say a little bit about that?

Jeremy Hunt: In terms of visible, confidence-building measures on the ground, one of the most important things is to get money into the Yemen economy through the Central Bank of Yemen in order to strengthen its functioning, and to ensure that pensions and civil servants’ salaries are paid. That will bring spending power into the economy and is covered in the draft UN resolution. When it comes to the next steps, the basic issue is that the Houthis, who are around 15% of the population, recognise that they can only have a junior part in a Government of national unity, which has to be the next step, but they need to have confidence that they will be secure in being able to play that part. That is why it is going to be important to build up confidence over the next six weeks. They accept the principle, but they have to be confident that it will be delivered. Of course, given what has happened, there is a huge amount of mistrust.

Stephen Twigg: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the progress that has been made with the Stockholm talks. I also echo his praise for both Martin Griffiths and Mark Lowcock.
On ceasefire monitoring, the special envoy explicitly requested a robust UN regime, answerable to the UN Security Council. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that that is what is provided in the current text? On confidence building, one of the issues that would really secure greater confidence would be agreement on the reopening of Sana’a airport. Is that being considered in the next stage?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman and his Select Committee on International Development for their sustained interest in Yemen; I also thank him for his personal commitment to making progress.
The monitoring mechanism is UN-authorised and will be reporting back to the UN. It is led by a Dutch general and the UN Secretary-General will be requested to report back weekly, so absolutely yes to that question. I raised the question of the airport with both delegations. We were hoping that we could get agreement to reopen Sana’a airport. There are essentially two international flights—I think to Egypt and Jordan—but the Government of Yemen wanted to insist that the international flights first went to Aden, which they control. The Houthis were reluctant to do that, so we were not able to reach an agreement, but it is very much the next step.

Bob Stewart: Allow me to concentrate on the corridor between Hodeidah and Sana’a, which will be 140 miles long, through very rough country. Whichever peacekeeping or monitoring force goes in has to be of the highest quality because, speaking from my own experience, that is one heck of a distance to monitor. And then, beyond Sana’a—or direct from the port—there will have to be corridors out  to get aid, because this aid will not succeed unless the people who are hungry put it in their mouths. That is the crucial thing that we have got to achieve.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his own experience of peacekeeping in Bosnia informs his questions, as the whole House will have seen. We do have the commitment from both sides to clear that road of combatants, but we will not succeed unless there is enough trust between both sides actually to sustain it. We are taking this one step at a time. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a long way ahead to make this happen, but—to reassure him—the UN will be monitoring what happens very closely, and anyone who breaks this agreement will face the full wrath of the UN and the members of the Security Council.

Hilary Benn: The fact that the Foreign Secretary has been able to report tentative progress to the House today after so much suffering and bloodshed is a reminder of the importance of seizing the moment and of courageous political leadership. I join all the other Members who have expressed their thanks to him, Martin Griffiths, Mark Lowcock and lots of other people who have worked very hard to bring this moment about. He said that Patrick Cammaert and his team may arrive on Saturday. Is it his understanding that the redeployment committee that he is responsible for chairing will have representation from the two warring parties—that they will turn up? On the peace process, it has been reported that the Government of Yemen were unwilling to sign an outline peace plan in Stockholm because they thought it gave too much to the Houthis and not enough to them. Can he confirm whether that is the case, and what does he think now needs to happen in order to win their confidence so that a peace plan can indeed make progress?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long-standing interest in this issue. On the second of those two questions, I will find out precisely what I know about it, but I do not think it was the objective to secure the framework in Stockholm; I think that was always thought to be something that would happen in January, at the second stage. On his first question, I will write to him with some details, if I may.

Richard Graham: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his contribution, as well as that of Martin Griffiths and Foreign Office officials, to the Stockholm ceasefire agreement, which gives a chance for peace and humanitarian relief in Yemen and is perhaps also a boost to multilateral negotiations in general. But does my right hon. Friend agree that for a ceasefire to be permanent, both sides and their backers, despite mistrust, will have to agree that there is no real victory from any further military action, only more human misery?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a former diplomat, he will know that what has bedevilled this conflict has been the belief on both sides, which I think persisted even when I started as Foreign Secretary just five months ago, that a military victory was possible. The people who have changed the most in this respect—to their credit—are the Saudis, who I think do now genuinely wish to find, and recognise the importance of, a political settlement. We need to continue the pressure on both sides to make sure that this is actually what happens.

Kevin Brennan: The Foreign Secretary said—I am sure, with sincerity—that, “behind these stark, impersonal numbers lie real people”. He will know, because I have raised this matter in correspondence, in meetings with Ministers and on the Floor of this House, about the case of my constituent, Jackie Morgan’s daughter, Safia, who was kidnapped from Cardiff in 1986, brought up in Yemen and has children who are also British citizens. She wants to leave Yemen and travel back to the UK, but she needs to get a British passport. She now apparently has the funds to travel to Cairo to apply for that passport. Will the Foreign Secretary please make sure that his officials and Ministers work with the Home Office to give special attention to this case? These are British citizens and they deserve special attention, given the tragic history of the case.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing this very sad case; we know about it extremely well, thanks to the representations that he has made. We are in contact with the Home Office about this matter. Until now, our difficulty has been that we have not had consular representation in Yemen. Obviously, that is something that we hope will change, but we will do everything we can to support his constituent and their family in the way that he wants.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress he has made thus far, but clearly this is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, so could he elaborate on the attitude of both those countries towards this fragile peace negotiation, and on what further steps he can take to encourage them to promote peace, rather than war?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right that this is the biggest geostrategic risk from the conflict in Yemen, but the sense I had when I went to both Riyadh and Tehran is that neither side wants to perpetuate it and both sides would like to see it concluded, if for no other reason than that the appalling humanitarian consequences of this conflict have become all too apparent. I think they feel a sense of responsibility for what is happening to fellow Muslims and want to do something about it.

Wera Hobhouse: We are approaching Christmas and I understand that one of the three wise men in the Bible story was the King of Sheba, which is modern Yemen. Christmas is very much a peace story, so it is very significant that we are talking about how we can bring peace to a country that is very disturbed. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his efforts, but I want to ask again, at which point will the Government consider suspending arms trade with Saudi Arabia? The question has been asked before, but I did not really understand exactly what the Government are doing.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me repeat it, then. We have one of the strictest arms control regimes in the world. We also have an independently run process that assesses the risk of a breach of international humanitarian law, and we follow that process.

Kevin Foster: Given the dreadful news that we have heard from Yemen over the past few years, I very much welcome the news of the ceasefire around  Hodeidah that will allow humanitarian aid to flow through. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that he has had discussions with his colleagues in the Department for International Development about what role Britain will play in ensuring that there is long-term support to rebuild this country?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely confirm that we have extensive discussions with my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary. Indeed, we raised the issue of Yemen yesterday at the National Security Council, and we are both in constant contact.

John Woodcock: It is a huge relief that the ceasefire has been implemented, and I endorse all the words of thanks that have gone before. However, does the Foreign Secretary genuinely believe that Iran has changed its view, given that this regime has deliberately increased the suffering and starvation of the Yemeni people that it has purported to be supporting? Does he believe that a peace deal that created an Iran-backed regime in Yemen could be catastrophic to peace in the middle east and must be ruled out at all costs?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There will never be peace unless it guarantees Saudi Arabia, one of Yemen’s neighbours, its territorial integrity. Saudi Arabia has had Iranian missiles fired into its capital from Yemen, which is a huge concern to it. Do  I genuinely believe that the Iranians have changed? I think the answer is that we would not have got the agreement we got in Stockholm without the support of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. So I do think there has been a change, but there is still a long way to go.

Bill Grant: All those in the Chamber will welcome the peace talks recently held in Stockholm and the progress that was indeed made there. Is my right hon. Friend confident that this will prove to be a stepping stone to a desperately needed permanent ceasefire in Yemen?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right that that is the holy grail. If we can get a proper, full, permanent ceasefire for the whole country, then everyone will heave a huge sigh of relief. We are taking small steps towards that with the ceasefire in Hodeidah, but the intention is that that builds trust between the parties that allows for the full ceasefire that he rightly calls for.

Alison Thewliss: First, I thank the Secretary of State for the work that he has done so far: it has been very heartening to see the progress that has been made. Kristine Beckerle from Human Rights Watch has pointed to the significance of prisoner exchange in the agreement, especially as this concerns political prisoners, activists, journalists, people of minority faiths such as the Baha’i, and refugees—men, boys and even women arbitrarily detained through the conflict. What assurances can he give on this, and what support will he give to the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure that this is closely monitored so that all those arbitrarily or deliberately detained will see freedom, and see it soon?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the issue of prisoner exchanges, because that is pretty much the very first way that we can build trust between both sides. That is what happened at Stockholm—the agreement does that. The UN resolution will be making sure that all the important parts of the Stockholm agreement are properly, independently monitored by the United Nations.

Chris Law: The international condemnation of the Saudi regime is almost unanimous. Many prominent EU member states, most recently Germany and Spain, along with Canada and now the US this week, have taken steps to either condemn the actions of the Saudi regime or suspend arms sales. If the UK wants to recover any semblance of moral leadership, should it not join the US Senate in condemning the regime’s illegal conduct and immediately suspend arms sales?

Jeremy Hunt: I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman is that there is no point in setting up an independent process that is one of the strictest in the world if we then do not go on to follow it, and that is what we are doing.

Layla Moran: Eighteen thousand children, some as young as 10, have been used as soldiers in this horrific war. They have been forced to torture and to kill with the promise of money for their families, largely by the Houthi rebels. Officially this has been denied, but Associated Press has interviewed no fewer than 18 child soldiers who have been exploited. When the Foreign Secretary met the Houthis, did he raise this matter? What discussions has he had with, and what assurances has he sought from, the UN envoy to Yemen to seek to ensure that the protection of all children is paramount and not an afterthought?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely reassure the hon. Lady that the protection of children, and indeed everyone vulnerable, is on all our minds, but certainly on the minds of the people who are trying to get the two sides together, because it is the escalating humanitarian crisis that has been a real engine for the talks. In terms of when we raise the issue of terrible behaviour with participants on all sides, there is a time and a place to do that, and at Stockholm we were trying to bring everyone together. So while we are setting up accountability mechanisms, we also have to recognise that the primary objective now is to get the fighting to stop.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: The use of child soldiers and the deliberate targeting of civilians are just two examples of the types of atrocities we have seen in this terrible war. While I very much appreciate the wording of the draft resolution on those responsible being held to account, will the Foreign Secretary set out how he is going to try to ensure, in practical terms, that investigation of these terrible human rights breaches is entirely independent?

Jeremy Hunt: We want it to be independent. The word used in the UN resolution is “credible”. Unless we have a credible investigation into these atrocities, we will not get closure on the issue, and there will not be justice  or confidence.

Mike Gapes: May I join Members who have praised the work of our diplomats and Ministers, and those from other countries, who have made this welcome but limited step possible? The Foreign Secretary referred to the political framework that he hopes will be discussed in January. He also mentioned, but did not go into detail on, the idea of a Government of national unity. Is it not a fact that the complexities of Yemen mean that there are not just two sides? Is any thought going into how to engage people in the south and other parts of Yemen in this process, because otherwise a Government of national unity will not work?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has a lot of experience of this from his time on the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is absolutely right. A Government of national unity has to cover the whole country. It has to give confidence to the Houthis that despite being a minority, their rights are going to be respected, but it also has to give confidence to all minorities, so I agree with him.

Paul Sweeney: Given accusations that gratuitous war crimes have been perpetrated by both Saudi Arabia and Iran, as the key regional proxies in this conflict, and their failure to honestly and openly investigate those accusations, why will the Secretary of State not support an independent UN-backed inquiry into allegations of war crimes perpetrated by all sides in the Yemen conflict? Why is that not included in the United Nations draft resolution?

Jeremy Hunt: Because the draft resolution has to have the consensus of both sides. I support fully independent investigations into everything that has happened. That is right, and it must happen, but we have to go step by step. At the moment, getting agreement to a ceasefire—the first ceasefire that we have had in the entire history of this terrible conflict—is a huge first step, and we would not want to compromise that.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his thoughtful and measured approach. Has he or the Minister for the Middle East, whose work I also commend, had any discussions with the United Nations high commissioner for refugees about possible consequences for numbers of refugees or internally displaced people and how we will respond?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East says he spoke to Filippo Grandi a couple of weeks ago about that issue.

Ian Murray: May I join other Members in commending the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team for making this progress—albeit fragile—with regard to Yemen? It is amazing what a Foreign Secretary can achieve in office, regardless of political colour, when the office holder takes the job seriously. What initial reactions has he had from other Security Council members to the draft resolution? What concerns, if any, have they raised? How are Martin Griffiths and his team, along with the Foreign Office team, addressing those concerns?

Jeremy Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman will know from his work on the Foreign Affairs Committee, there is a range of views on the Security Council. Broadly speaking,   there is a combination of people who are naturally sympathetic to one side or the other and people who think that the most important thing now is to move forward with humanitarian relief, and it is about bringing those people together.

Graham Jones: I think every Member of the House is delighted with these first steps in the peace process in Yemen to alleviate this tragic humanitarian crisis, which has gone on for too long. Nothing sums up this crisis more than at the weekend, when a sister and brother aged six and four were shot by Houthi snipers for trying to play out in the street. It is a terrible situation. Will the Foreign Secretary also raise the 1 million landmines left by the Houthis, which is a terrible legacy that will need clearing up in these peace talks? Will his final resolution to the UN include free and fair elections?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman’s point about landmines is very important. The UK has a lot of experience and fantastic NGOs that work in that area, and I am sure we would want to make them available to service the people of Yemen. The draft resolution does not talk about the future political framework, important though that is. That is really a stage for the next set of talks, which we hope will happen in January.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I want to add my warm words about this agreement, which is a positive step forward. I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary mentioned not only Hodeidah but Ras Isa, because without opening up that fuel terminal, we will be unable to get food to the rest of the country. However, at Foreign Office questions, Ministers  told us that they could not tell the House whether UK-manufactured weapons or planes were involved in the deaths of civilians and possible war crimes. The head of the independent office that he mentioned recommended, in his professional judgment, that arms sales should be suspended, but Ministers overturned that judgment. Will the Foreign Secretary now look again at suspending arms sales?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets that information from, but it is not correct.

Lisa Cameron: I would like to thank the Secretary of State and his team for the work they have been doing on this grave issue of the war in Yemen. It has been a war on children and the most vulnerable. Every 10 minutes, a child dies in Yemen. My local churches are desperate to do all they can, and I know that the Minister for the Middle East will be visiting the DFID office in my constituency tomorrow. What more can we do as MPs, communities and constituents to avert the humanitarian disaster that has encompassed Yemen?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The answer is that we can all ensure that our constituents know about the issues in Yemen and encourage people to support the charities and NGOs that are funding the humanitarian work there.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his sterling endeavours, leadership and constructive role on visits to the area over the last few months; it has been much appreciated. Given reports  that 67% of the Yemen population need urgent action to save lives and livelihoods, 20 million Yemenis are vulnerable to death and a quarter of a million are on the brink of starvation, can he outline the type of aid that has gone from here to there in the last three months and what plans there are to help with equipment and support, to allow people to survive and to work safely?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. With the £170 million that we gave in the last year alone, we are supporting food, water, shelter and other vital relief for people in this desperate situation.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

John Bercow: As I promised the House, I have looked at the television footage of the Leader of the Opposition reacting to the Prime Minister, allegedly saying “stupid woman” to those seated next to him. Having heard the allegation against the Leader of the Opposition and having watched the footage, it is easy to see why the Leader of the Opposition’s words might be construed as “stupid woman”. That was also the opinion of lipspeakers—and I emphasise, lipspeakers rather than lipreaders—whose advice was sought and obtained at short notice.
As may be known to Members of the House—it is important in terms of establishing the context—but may not be known to others watching or listening to our proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was seated at the time and not addressing the House, so whatever he said was not, and is not, audible on the House’s audio-visual record. As I have told the House, I neither saw the incident nor heard anything. It was, for the same reasons, neither heard nor seen by the Clerks or by my private secretary, nor was there any immediate reaction in the House.
I believe that the allegation made by a number of hon. and right hon. Members was based upon the visual evidence from Parliament TV. I also have to rely purely on visual evidence. I am not a lipreader, or indeed, a lipspeaker. Nobody can be 100% certain. That includes professional lipreaders, but I will naturally take, and would be expected to take, the word of any right hon. or hon. Member. It is reasonable to expect the House to do the same. I therefore invite the right hon. Gentleman, who has at my request returned to the House for this purpose, to make his explanation to the House, which again, I expect to be heard without interruption.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for your invitation to come to make a short point to the House, which I am very happy to do, and I have come immediately to do that. During Prime Minister’s Question Time today, I referred to those who I believe were seeking to turn a debate about the national crisis facing our country into a pantomime as “stupid people”. I did not use the words “stupid woman” about the Prime Minister or anyone else and am completely opposed to the use of sexist or misogynist language in absolutely any form at all. I am happy to place that on the record at your request this afternoon. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Thank you.

Andrea Leadsom: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that the country and this House will have drawn their own conclusions—[Interruption.] I deeply regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

John Bercow: I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said, which requires no comment from the Chair.

Rachel Maclean: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With your guidance, how may I make this orderly? Read my lips: I do not believe him. What can we do to further verify this evidence? What can we do to further ask experts to review this evidence and get the apology from the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister deserves?

John Bercow: It is not open to a Member to impugn the integrity of another Member. That is—[Interruption.] Order, please. That is a violation of the established—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will permit me. She has raised a point of order, perfectly reasonably, and I am responding to her. It is not in order to impute dishonour to another Member. That is a very long established convention of this House, so it is not orderly to accuse another Member of dishonesty.
When the hon. Lady inquires what further may be done, the answer to her is that people can seek to solicit opinions on this matter, including of a professional character. I have offered, at short notice, as I thought was my duty, the fruits of the professional advice that I have received and I have shared that very openly with the House. It is not for the Chair to pronounce judgment—guilty or innocent—upon a Member. It is well established that a Member is to be taken at his or her word. If the matter is to be further discussed, debated or commented on, that is to be expected, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair now. That is as full and, I hope the hon. Lady will agree, as courteous a response as I could possibly be expected to provide.

Vicky Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have heard the words “stupid woman” being used in this Chamber about myself, and I am afraid to say I have heard it from yourself in the Speaker’s Chair. So please can we have an apology, draw a line under this and move on?

John Bercow: Thank you. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I understood that she had made this observation outside the House. What I want to say to the hon. Lady, whom I always treat with great respect in this Chamber, is the following. The hon. Lady has at no time previously—that is to say, prior to today—made that allegation against me. The hon. Lady has not come to me and said that, and to my knowledge—[Interruption.] If the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of allowing me to respond to her point of order, as she has raised it. To my knowledge, I am not in receipt of a letter alleging that. If there is such an allegation, I refute it 100%.
I have received a letter from the hon. Lady, as she knows, within I think the last 24 hours, on an unrelated matter—specifically to do with proxy voting and baby leave—and I believe I am right in saying—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of allowing me to respond. I believe I am right in saying that she wrote to me on that matter, at least in part, in her capacity as chair of the all-party group on women in Parliament. To that letter, she will of course receive a response.
That contention has not previously been made, but if it is now made, I say with absolute certainty, it is not correct. I have not said that to or about the hon. Lady. That is my response to the hon. Lady.

Laura Pidcock: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to say it is nice to be back. I just wonder what conclusion Members of the public will draw from the Chamber being used in this way. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has made his point. I have heard from my constituency office today that residents in my constituency have had to have present parcels delivered to them because they cannot afford to buy their children presents and they have not got the money for food. The Chamber being used in this way is absolutely pathetic.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has made her own point in her own way. It is on the record, and I thank her for taking part in these proceedings.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I will come to other Members—preferably to people who have not already raised points of order. I call Helen Whately.

Helen Whately: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, actually, it is important what language is used in this Chamber. In this centenary year, a large number of us on both sides of the House have made huge efforts to encourage more women to stand for Parliament. Many of them have been successful: I believe women are coming forward. It is a great shame that we seem to be nearing the end of the year on such a sour note. May I urge you, Mr Speaker, to do more to make sure that the tone of this Chamber is better next year—not just to draw a line under this, but to make sure that next year is better on these points?

John Bercow: May I say to the hon. Lady, I think that is an entirely reasonable point of order. I am happy to do my bit, and everybody else should do their bit as well. I have the highest regard for the hon. Lady, whose commitment on these issues is well known to me. I hope she and others will take it in the right spirit if I say that throughout my nine and a half years in the Chair to date, I have devoted myself to the cause of trying to open up this place. I have sought to do everything I can to promote a progressive approach in the Chamber, in the calling of Members, in the functions that I host in Speaker’s House, and in the approach to facilities on the estate, which did not previously exist. That is all part of the record. It is manifest, it is observable and it is incontrovertible. Can we all do better? We can. Should we? We should. Will we? I hope that we will. So I am agreeing with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that that will please her.

Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think everybody in the House would know of the well respected and much admired deaf musician, Dame Evelyn Glennie, the world-famous percussionist. On live television this afternoon, she was shown by the presenter of that television programme the clip of the Leader of the Opposition and was asked what he had said, and she said, “He said, ‘Stupid woman.’” Is there any way I can put it on the record that, with that tone of apology from the right hon. Gentleman, it would have been better if he hadn’t bothered?

John Bercow: I do not honestly think, and I say this in all courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for three decades, that he is really very interested in anything I have to say in response to him.

Simon Hoare: I am.

John Bercow: No, and I am not even complaining. I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his good humour. The hon. Gentleman wanted to make his own point and he has made it. I stand by what I previously said. He has made an important point, but it is not a contradiction of what I have said about the impossibility of certainty, nor is it inconsistent with the spontaneous interpretation which I myself offered. But I repeat: it was my interpretation—I am not a lipreader, I am not a lipspeaker, and it is not for me to cast judgment in this matter. Fair-minded people, who are interested in the merits of the issue—and I am sure that includes the hon. Gentleman—will know that what I say is true.

Seema Malhotra: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I also agree that we have a responsibility, as Members of this House, to uphold the very highest standards in language about each other, but also about each other’s integrity, and I do hope that we will be able to see a renewed commitment to that next year. Mr Speaker, I have been proud to sit on your Committee for enhancing equality and diversity in this House since very soon after I was elected, and to put on the record my thanks to you for your commitment to equality and diversity in this House in so many different matters.
My point of order is on a slightly different topic, however. According to press reports of a leaked Department for Work and Pensions document, “EU Exit Planning—Economic Downturn”, the Government, as part of their long-term contingency planning in the event of no deal, suggested they would create a strategy with other Departments for handling the negative impacts, such as homelessness, poverty and suicide. If that is true, these are extremely serious allegations or matters, and should be brought explicitly to this House, so that we may have access to Government analysis as to who they expect to fall into poverty, where homelessness could rise, and who they see as being at risk of suicide.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her initial remarks and for her subsequent point of order, to which my response is that there may be an opportunity for those concerns to be aired during the course of the afternoon.

Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I declare an interest, as someone who has a bad habit of making utterances under my breath in this Chamber? My point of order to you, Sir, is, had you received different advice from the lipspeakers, giving uncontrovertible evidence as to what the Leader of the Opposition had said, what would have been the result? I am deeply concerned about the fact that if Members are to be upbraided for what they might say under their breath, we are in the realms of thought crime, and this is the madness that is sweeping universities. What was said was not on the record.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I think I have already pointed to the impossibility of certainty in these matters. I repeat that I think most people would accept the reasonableness of my point. I note, with interest and respect, the point the right hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely experienced and distinguished parliamentarian, has made.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fully accept what you have said. You were not in the eyeline of the Leader of the Opposition. Sitting where I was sitting, I was in the eyeline of the Leader of the Opposition. I have to accept what he has said at the Dispatch Box, because I do not think he would deliberately lie to the House, but other people will be able to draw their own conclusions.

John Bercow: May I, off the top of my head, thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the understated terms in which he has said it? People can form their own judgment, but I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not seeking to prolong the argument further—at any rate, on the evidence of what he has just said. That, I think, is respected. He is a very senior Member of this House with long experience.

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I thank you, Mr Speaker? You said you would go away, look at the video evidence and make your mind up. You did that and I am very grateful. But it is for my constituents to make their own mind up when they look at the footage. It is for them to decide if the Leader of the Opposition—or anyone else—is indeed a misogynist or antisemitic, not us.

John Bercow: With great respect, I heard the hon. Gentleman out and it was right to do so. He has made his own point, including a point that was not germane to these exchanges or this controversy, but it stands on the record. I said I would look into it. I have looked into it. I have come back to the House and I have said what I have said. The Leader of the Opposition has said what he has said. I do not honestly think I can be expected to add to that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Nigel Huddleston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), may I say to you, with the greatest of respect, Mr Speaker, that there are occasions when people do leave the Chamber feeling that they have been offended by yourself? The fact that the hon. Member felt that way, yet did not feel that there was an appropriate process in place to make that complaint or concern felt, probably suggests we still have work to do in terms of raising issues and concerns in this place.

John Bercow: There is always work to do. Progress is not a matter of an isolated Act or a single initiative, but rather of a continuous process. I accept the significance of what the hon. Gentleman says in that regard, which seems to me to be unexceptionable.

Laura Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As somebody who is still a relatively new Member of this House, I wonder if you could advise me on how I can explain to my constituents the level of party politics that is being played out—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. That observation from the beginning of that point of order has met with much criticism, but I would very gently say to Members that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand talk about wanting respect for their own right to speak and  their own opinion, but not accord a comparable level of respect to someone who happens to express a view that differs from their own.

Laura Smith: You hit on the end of my point, Mr Speaker. The level of hypocrisy in this place is quite astounding. On the Opposition Benches, we have to put up with the most disgraceful insults thrown at us, nobody more so than the Leader of the Opposition, who has to put up with it day in, day out.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has made her point with force and in her own way, and I thank her for doing so; she is perfectly in order, and it is now on the record.

Mike Wood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The guidance that you issued to Members earlier in the week drew attention to both the need for temperate language and the provisions around misogynistic language as part of the respect policy. If these rules do not apply to the Leader of the Opposition, what protection can Members’ staff and staff of the House expect where behaviour is not broadcast live on international television?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The simple answer is that the rules apply to every right hon. and hon. Member of the House. That is the factual answer. I can do nothing other than provide the factual answer, but I thank him for what he has said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Yes, I will take the remaining points of order, but I do ask the House to consider the other business to which we need to proceed.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On a different note, and one for which I hope a point of order should be used, I seek your advice—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. This is not a moment for levity; I want to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how I could get clarification of the answer that I received from the Foreign Secretary in the Yemen statement. I said that the senior civil servant in the arms control unit had advised against sales and that Ministers had overturned that. The Foreign Secretary declared that that was not true. The Foreign Secretary and the International Trade Secretary both refused to attend the hearing of the Committees on Arms Export Controls this year and have both said that they will not attend next year. How can we get them to come before the CAEC to answer these questions?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman can request attendance. Insofar as he inquires about other recourse open to him, my advice to the hon. Gentleman, who is a resourceful individual, is that he should make the short journey from the Chamber to the Table Office to table questions on this matter. It may be that he will feel inclined to table more than one question. He may table several. He may do so on a repeated basis. There is no prohibition on repetition in the House of Commons.

Kemi Badenoch: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your remarks earlier about impugning another Member’s honour and integrity, I distinctly heard during Prime Minister’s questions the Leader of the Opposition refer to my right hon. Friend’s actions as criminal. I have checked Hansard, and that is on the record. Is that in order?

John Bercow: It is perfectly in order to offer that expression of opinion, and I say that on advice from the Clerk. I did not witness that exchange.

Claire Perry: He said it.

John Bercow: I am not asking the Minister of State what she thinks he said; I am responding to the hon. Lady’s point of order. People are entitled to offer their own views within the rules of order, and to the best of my knowledge, nothing disorderly was said. I am happy to look at the record and consult further, but the advice I have received is that nothing disorderly was said.

Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suspect that most of us are in the Chamber to hear a very important application for an emergency debate on the single most important issue that has faced our country in peacetime, and the public looking in will find this spectacle completely ludicrous. Can we please move on to the important business of the House?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hope he will understand if I say that it is not possible in these matters to please everyone. I am trying to do the right thing by listening to, taking account of and offering a response to points of order, but I am conscious, as the House will be, that we have important business to which to proceed, and I intend that we shall do so. I politely suggest that if people have already made points of order, they should not treat them as an ongoing debate. If somebody raises a point of order, and I respond to it, it is reasonable to proceed to the next person and then to a conclusion of those points of order.

Dr Caroline Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Trust in politics is very important. The vast majority of us have now seen the video. Members on both sides of the House have commented that they thought the words used were “stupid woman”. Members of the public have commented on Twitter and elsewhere that they thought the words were “stupid woman”. If I understand you correctly, Mr Speaker, your own interpretation of the video was that the words used were “stupid woman”, and that your lipspeaker and the lipreader of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) have said the same.
I take the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) at his word, because I am sure that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said—he would not lie in the Chamber. However, I am very concerned about the possibility that incongruity between the different statements will affect trust in politics, and I want to know how you could use your good offices, Mr Speaker, to ensure that  it is not affected adversely by the incongruity between what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

John Bercow: The answer is, by behaving well on a regular basis and by attending to our responsibilities in the House. That, encapsulated in a sentence, is my response to the hon. Lady’s point of order, and I think it is fair and reasonable.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was right in saying that whatever the Leader of the Opposition said was not said on the record; the Leader of the Opposition, however, has now put it on the record by coming to the Dispatch Box and making his statement. Anyone—and I mean anyone, not just those in the Chamber—who has a complaint to make about that has recourse to the proper procedures involving the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Surely at this time of all times, Mr Speaker, it is important that we use the proper procedures, rather than proceeding to trial by points of order in the Chamber.

John Bercow: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we do not have, or we should not have, trial by points of order. That is not consistent with any due process. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say to him that, as far as I understand it, conduct in the Chamber does not fall within the purview of the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, so I do not think that an allegation of misconduct on that front in this situation could be adjudicated by the Commissioner. I do not think that that is correct. What I will say is that there are opportunities for Members to continue this argument and debate if they so wish, but I genuinely ask the House, how does it avail our deliberations on public policy to proceed indefinitely with points of order on the same subject? Manifestly, it does not.

Paul Scully: rose—

James Heappey: rose—

John Bercow: I will take two more points of order, and then I really do think that we should draw the matter to a close.

Paul Scully: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to bring it to a close, in asking you whether, in order to enable Members in this place and members of the public to make up their own minds, you might publish the advice that you received. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I am advised “No”, and I stick to the advice “No”. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I consulted. There was no written advice from the lipspeakers; this was done at very short notice, and I was given a view by them. It was not without qualification. I will not go into the detail of it—I gave the essence of it—but it was not without qualification or caveat. There is, however, no written advice from the lipspeakers. I hope that I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that there is merit in persisting with this exchange, but that is my response to him.

James Heappey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I change the subject, and return to the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)?
There has been a series of Standing Order No. 24 debates recently. On Monday, more than 50 Opposition Members rose, and barely a dozen or so spoke. The previous week, the Opposition Benches were full at the point of application, and barely 20 Opposition Members spoke thereafter. In your reviewing of Hansard, Mr Speaker, have you noticed any inconsistency between the urgency shown in applying for Standing Order No. 24 debates and participation thereafter, and in your review of the content of the speeches in those debates, have you noticed any difference between that content and the content of our more routine discourse on Brexit?
Finally, Mr Speaker, as Opposition Members may shortly rise to support such a debate tomorrow, have you any expectation of how many of them will then attend to speak in it?

John Bercow: My answer to the last point is no, and my response to the hon. Gentleman—I thank him for his multi-faceted point of order—is as follows: there is absolutely no inconsistency whatsoever between Members rising to support the granting of a debate on the one hand and not choosing to participate in it on the other. There is no incongruity, there is no incompatibility, there is no inconsistency, there is no contradiction. I hope the hon. Gentleman, who is a most courteous and assiduous Member of this House, will accept that I am well familiar with the procedures of this House and I know of what I speak. The hon. Gentleman might think that that is odd or peculiar or that it offends his sensibilities in some way—and I am sorry if that is the case—but there is nothing wrong or procedurally improper about that at all. I am asked if I have an estimate of the number of Members: no, I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attributing to me powers that I do not possess, but I am not psychic.

Rushanara Ali: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning there was a knife attack in a surgery in my constituency and three people were attacked. Do you agree that instead of debating points of order about what was said earlier, we should draw a line under that and move on to the substantive issues that affect our constituencies, because otherwise people will rightly think that collective stupidity has taken hold of this House?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said and the sincerity with which I know she said it—I know all Members speak with sincerity. I hope we can shortly move on.

Catherine West: rose—

Barry Sheerman: rose—

John Bercow: But not until we have heard from, I think, two other Members. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is a national institution and I want to save him until the end. I call Catherine West.

Catherine West: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have saved this point of order until now as it is not to do with our earlier debate. On 28 November I tabled a  named day question to the Home Secretary regarded LGBT asylum cases, and three weeks have now passed but, sadly, no answer to the question has materialised. I understand that the Government are in complete meltdown over Brexit, but can you, Mr Speaker, offer any guidance as to what parliamentary mechanisms are available to compel the Home Secretary to answer these important inquiries?

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of this matter. Responsibility for answering parliamentary questions lies with the departmental Ministers concerned. I certainly agree that it is unsatisfactory if Ministers do not respond to questions in the expected timescale, and to be so late in responding to a named day question would appear to be particularly unacceptable. Successive Leaders of the House have also accepted a responsibility to take up such tardiness of reply, or indeed non-reply, with departmental Ministers.

Andrea Leadsom: indicated assent.

John Bercow: I thank the Leader of the House for signalling from a sedentary position that she, too, does so and takes such matters seriously.
I would further suggest to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) that she write to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who is in our midst, as his Committee takes an active part in monitoring the timeliness of Government answers to parliamentary questions. Meanwhile, no doubt her concern has been noted on the Treasury Bench.
Lastly, I think, on the Opposition Benches I want to hear the point of order from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who was first elected to the House 39 years, seven months and 16 days ago.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was going to start my remarks by saying that I have been in the House longer than you, and that is true. I am also well known to be a bit of a chunterer; I often turn to the person next to me and say quite rude things—not dreadful, but rude—about something I disagree with. This is a serious point of order: I cannot believe that this House is going to get to the stage where these events happen when someone says something under their breath—“What a silly sod”, for instance, which I say very often, quite loudly, under my breath. We cannot have a system here where we start lipreading something someone has said to their next-door neighbour when passions are high in this House. It is supposed to be a place of high passions, but it is also a place where we treat people like adults, and today we have been like badly behaved children. We are in a crucial time in the history of our country—the most delicate and worrying time in my time in the House—and we have spent all these hours on this matter. I believe the Leader of the Opposition said what he said; let us draw a line under it and get on and act like grown-ups.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Before we proceed, all I would like to do is to plant in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members one simple fact, which is that a number of very senior Members with long experience of this House, and coming from both sides of it, have in recent months made a very similar point. Today, the hon. Gentleman has made that point, and I do not think that the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) will take exception or cavil if I say that she made a similar point at an earlier stage in our proceedings. It is a point that has also been previously made by the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). They do have long experience, they do know what they are talking about, and it might be a good idea to have a degree of calm and a readiness to heed their wise advice.

LEAVING THE EU: NO DEAL

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

John Bercow: I now call Keir Starmer to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.

Keir Starmer: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing time to hear this application for an emergency debate on a specific and important matter—namely, that this House has considered the matter of the Cabinet’s decision to accelerate preparations for a no-deal outcome to Brexit following the Prime Minister’s failure to allow this House promptly to express its view on the Government’s deal in the light of the significant public expenditure involved.
Yesterday, the Government announced an additional £2 billion of spending to prepare for leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement. They have done so after denying the House the opportunity to express its view on the Government’s deal or its view on leaving the European Union without a deal, by deferring the meaningful vote originally scheduled for Tuesday 11 December. If that vote had been held, I have no doubt that the Government’s deal would have been roundly rejected, as would any proposal that we leave with no deal. No Government have the right to risk the wellbeing of the United Kingdom because of their own failed negotiations, and it is vital that the Government are held to account for their spending of public money, especially when the sums involved are so large and the stakes are so high. I therefore ask for this emergency debate to be held.

John Bercow: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24—namely, the matter of the Cabinet’s decision to accelerate preparations for a no-deal outcome to Brexit following the Prime Minister’s failure to allow this House promptly to express its view   on the Government’s deal in the light of the significant public expenditure involved. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted this, but it is right for me to quote it. I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman the leave of the House?

Peter Bone: No! No! No!

John Bercow: The objection has been raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), which is in conformity with our procedures. In those circumstances, if there is an objection it is necessary for at least 40 Members to rise in their places in the House in order to facilitate such a debate. It is I think clear that somewhat in excess of 40 Members are standing in the House.
Application agreed to (not fewer than 40 Members standing in support).
I thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough, who has faithfully complied with our procedures, but the fact is that the House has, under our rules, decided that the debate is sought. I thank Members for doing so. The debate will take place immediately, and it would ordinarily do so for up to three hours but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it has to conclude by the moment of interruption, so it will be a little less than three hours. It is right that he should now open the debate—[Interruption.] In fact, this will happen after we have heard the 10-minute rule motion, so it will be somewhat shorter. This will be a second go of the day, and a fuller opportunity for the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) to speak on this important matter.

Maria Caulfield: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Mr Pound, calm yourself, man. I am sure that you have some witticism to share with a colleague, which will be of great interest to the said Member, but it could usefully be done outside the curtilage of the Chamber. The hon. Lady deserves the courtesy of the attention of the House, so I ask Members who wish to discuss other matters to do so elsewhere. We have just been talking about the need for respect. Let us show the hon. Lady respect as she introduces her ten-minute rule motion.

Defibrillators (Availability)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Maria Caulfield: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of defibrillators in education establishments, and in leisure, sports and certain other public facilities; to make provision for training persons to operate defibrillators; to make provision for funding the acquisition, installation, use and maintenance of defibrillators; and for connected purposes.
This is my second attempt to bring in this Bill, as it fell last year when the general election was called. It is imperative that we push for the mandatory installation of these life-saving devices in our public buildings. As I said during Prime Minister’s questions, each and every week 12 young people die as a result of a sudden cardiac arrest. If they are in a shockable rhythm, around 80% of them could be saved by the use of a defibrillator.
The purpose of the Bill is therefore to increase rates of survival from cardiac arrest, as currently the UK’s record is dismal. According to the British Heart Foundation, almost 30,000 cardiac arrests a year happen outside hospitals, and less than 10% of those people survive. In fact, in some parts of England, the survival rate is as low as 2%. Behind each of those statistics are people, families and communities.
A cardiac arrest can happen for many reasons, from trauma right through to congenital heart defects, but if a person is in a shockable rhythm, using a defibrillator can increase their chances of survival by as much as 80%. However, for a defibrillator to be successful, quick access to it is essential, because minutes count. If too much time elapses, a shockable rhythm turns to a non-shockable rhythm and the chances of survival decrease rapidly. If a person’s heart is not restarted within four minutes, their chances of living are reduced by almost 80%. Even the speediest paramedic in the country would struggle to get to someone in four minutes. That is why having easy, accessible defibrillators is so crucial.
Across the UK, we have laws mandating the availability of other life-saving equipment, such as seatbelts, fire extinguishers and smoke alarms, but there is not a single piece of legislation requiring defibrillators, which could restart the hearts of 12 young people each week.
My passion for this subject was started by Jessica Batchelor, the former Young Mayor of Seaford in my constituency. At the age of 15, she witnessed at first hand a close family friend die of a sudden cardiac arrest, and no defibrillator was available. As the town’s Young Mayor, she raised thousands of pounds to ensure that there are defibrillators in Seaford, and she lobbied me as the local MP to do something about a change in the law. Councillor Merle Phillips in my other town of Polegate is currently raising thousands of pounds, because the town is divided by a level crossing and only one side has a defibrillator.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure that schools, sports facilities and public buildings, in every town and village in the country, all have defibrillators as standard that can be accessed 24 hours a day. As the Prime Minister said during Question Time, not every village has a school or leisure centre, but they do all need a designated defibrillator, and it is important that people know where the equipment is.
Currently, there is a postcode lottery, because even in schools, despite the Department for Education’s efforts, we know of only 1,389 defibrillators in schools in England. We know of one in Northern Ireland, and we do not know of any in Scotland. That is not to say they do not exist, but without this register, we are none the wiser where this life-saving equipment is.
The Bill also aims to increase the use of defibrillators, because it is important not just to have defibrillators but to make sure they are used when they are needed. Residents in my villages tell me that they would be afraid to use a defibrillator and that they think they need training to do so, although nothing could be further from the truth. All a person has to do is to stick the two pads on someone’s chest and turn the machine on. The machine will tell them exactly what to do, without training, but people are afraid to use them. The Bill’s aim is not to state that only trained people should use defibrillators but to mandate training for local communities with every installation so that people feel confident to use them.
I wonder how many Members of Parliament here today know how many defibrillators are on the parliamentary estate. There are 28 in total, in the House of Lords, the House of Commons, Norman Shaw North, Portcullis House and two in the Elizabeth Tower, but do Members know where the nearest defibrillator is to us right now? According to the intranet, it is in Member’s Lobby, but it took me, a Doorkeeper and a member of security four minutes to find it this morning. It is in a cupboard with no sign, and no one knew it was there. Those four minutes could cost someone’s life.
I will share the difference a defibrillator can make. This morning, I heard from Stuart Freeman, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), whose daughter, aged just 18, suffered a cardiac arrest in March. She was given cardiopulmonary resuscitation and a defibrillator was available, and it saved her life. Serena has met my hon. Friend to plead the case for better training and for more access to defibrillators, and she is a great example of the difference defibrillators can make.
I therefore move that the Bill be introduced so we can mandate that defibrillators are installed across the whole UK in publicly accessible places and that training is available so that people know what to do in the event of a cardiac arrest and are not afraid to use defibrillators if they are needed. It is crucial to support the work of our many charities, such as the British Heart Foundation and St John Ambulance, to ensure we save as many lives as possible.
This week, 12 young people will die from a cardiac arrest, and 28,000 people will die from a cardiac arrest this year. Those lives could have been saved by the Bill, and I urge Members to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jim Shannon, Stephen Twigg, Mr Edward Vaizey, Chris Green, Dr Philippa Whitford, Peter Aldous, Dr Lisa Cameron and Maria Caulfield present the Bill.
Maria Caulfield accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 308).

John Bercow: Order. Before we proceed to the Standing Order No. 24 debate, I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to markets in financial instruments, the Ayes were 307 and the Noes were 215, so the Question was agreed to. In respect of the question relating to accounts and reports, the Ayes were 305 and the Noes were 216, so the Question was agreed to.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

Emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

Keir Starmer: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the Cabinet’s decision to accelerate preparations for a no-deal outcome to Brexit, following the Prime Minister’s failure to allow this House promptly to express its views on the Government’s deal, in the light of the significant public expenditure involved.
The background to this debate is well known. This House was due to vote on the Government’s deal on 11 December. The day before that vote, the Prime Minister pulled the vote, recognising that she was going to lose the vote, as she said, by “a significant margin” and saying that she wanted more time to “secure further assurances” on the backstop. I was in the House when the Prime Minister made her statement on 10 December, and in my view the majority were clearly against deferring the vote. No doubt for that reason the Prime Minister did not have the courage to put her decision to defer the meaningful vote to a vote, preferring instead for the Government not to move their own business.
The problem with the Prime Minister’s approach is obvious, which is why the majority were against deferring the vote. First, the Prime Minister is highly unlikely to get meaningful changes to the withdrawal agreement. Secondly, unless meaningful changes to the withdrawal agreement are made, the majority in this House are not likely to support her deal, whenever it gets put. That is a point bluntly accepted by the International Trade Secretary, who said recently
“It is very difficult to support the deal if we don’t get changes to the backstop. I don’t think it will get through.”
The first problem about getting meaningful changes to the withdrawal agreement was laid bare last week. After informal talks on Monday and Tuesday of last week between the Prime Minister and other leaders, and then the EU summit on Thursday and Friday, the EU made its position clear. The President of the Commission said that there is
“no room whatsoever for renegotiation”.
The Commission spokesperson said:
“The European Council has given the clarifications that were possible at this stage, so no further meetings with the UK are foreseen.”
The EU Council also made it clear that the withdrawal agreement is “not open for renegotiation”. That is why there have been such strong calls this week for the vote to be put back to this House this week.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: Many of us, right hon. and hon. Members in this House, are becoming increasingly suspicious that the reason why this Brexit can is being kicked further and further down the road by the Prime Minister is to take us to the eleventh hour, and then hold the British public and parliamentarians in this House to ransom, saying, “It is my deal or no deal.” Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a disastrous and reckless policy, which is not in our national interest?”

Keir Starmer: I do agree and I will elaborate on that in just a moment. The strong calls this week for the vote to be put this week are so that, the deal having been  defeated, as it inevitably will be, this House can get on with assessing what then are the available and achievable options for the future.

Layla Moran: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if this were a company and we were living outside the Westminster bubble, in the real world, we would not be allowed to take Christmas holidays while such an existential crisis is happening to our country? Does he agree that we should all be put on standby by this Government so that at the first available minute we can have a vote on this important matter?

Keir Starmer: I certainly agree that we need the vote as soon as possible, and I really do think it should have been on 11 December—if not then, it should have been this week. To elaborate on the point just made, the only purpose now in deferring the vote until 14 January is to run the clock down, and to attempt to present the vote as a binary choice between the Prime Minister’s deal and no deal.

Stephen Doughty: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is deeply dangerous to use the sort of scare tactics we saw being briefed out from No. 10 this morning, when it was said that somehow 3,500 troops were going to be put on the street? I asked the Home Secretary repeatedly about that after his own permanent secretary had told me that there were no such plans for troops to be used at our borders. Somebody is not telling the truth here—it is either the briefings coming out of No. 10 or somebody else.

Keir Starmer: I share my hon. Friend’s concern and will elaborate on that point in just a minute. To build on that comment, as I have been saying for some time, I do not think for one moment that this House is going to accept the binary choice that the Prime Minister will attempt to put before us. A choice between bad and even worse is not a meaningful choice. Nor is leaving the EU on 29 March next year without a deal viable. It has never been viable, and as every day goes past it becomes less and less viable.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is going to do this in his speech, but one thing that would greatly reassure not only the public but businesses and some of our public services, which are now being forced to spend unnecessarily billions of pounds that would be best spent on other things, would be if he could talk through how Parliament will ensure that no deal cannot happen.

Keir Starmer: I really think it is the duty of the Government and the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and rule out no deal. That is the first thing, and that is the easiest way, because I think the vast majority of Members of the House would agree with it. If the Government will not do that, I am absolutely sure that this House will take the first opportunity to express its view. Whether by way of amendments to the motion in January, through other amendments, or by whatever means, the voice of this House and the majority who will not countenance no deal must be heard and will be heard. I have said it before, but I say it again: I think that deep down this Government and this  Prime Minister know jolly well that no deal is not viable. That calls into question the expenditure that has been announced as additional expenditure, not the only expenditure.

John Redwood: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is not a no deal, because if we leave without signing the withdrawal agreement, there will be various deals? Would he welcome the agreement on the common transit convention? Would he welcome the air services agreement? Would he welcome the facilitation of trade agreement? There are going to be plenty of agreements so that we can trade perfectly successfully—will he stop his scaremongering?

Keir Starmer: I shall come to that point in a minute, but simply listing all the things that need to happen between now and 29 March to get to a so-called managed no deal only makes the point: it is not going to happen in the three months available.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the clock is now ticking and the Government need seriously to start to think about extending article 50 so that they can send in some decent negotiators to negotiate a deal? Or, we can put this back to the British people in an election.

Keir Starmer: I do agree that serious consideration needs to be given to the timetable now set by article 50, because by 14 January we will be just nine weeks away from the proposed date of leaving the EU. On any view, the Government will then have to make a choice about what to do next. No plan B has ever been forthcoming. In the week or so before the deferral of the vote last week, the question everybody was asking was, “What is the Prime Minister’s plan B?” When she pulled the vote and ran away, we learned that she does not have a plan B. The Prime Minister will have to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement about what she proposes happens next. If she stands at that Dispatch Box and says that she intends to take the UK out of the EU without a deal, I genuinely believe that Parliament—this House—will do everything that it can to stop that course of action.

John Woodcock: Given that it is the only route that gives legal certainty to be able to stop no deal, can I take it from what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying that if we get to the end and the only thing to do is revoke article 50, the official Opposition would support that, alongside Government Members?

Keir Starmer: What I have said is that I genuinely think that the majority in this House is against no deal. One reason why I feel strongly that the vote should be put as soon as possible is that the discussion and the debate about what happens next need to happen sooner rather than later because they will take time. We need then to assess what the options are and to see where the consensus of the House is. All that is happening in this deferment of the vote for weeks is wasting the time of the House that should be spent on the question of how we prevent leaving without a deal.

Joanna Cherry: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will give way, but then I will make some progress.

Joanna Cherry: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. Let me congratulate him on achieving this important debate this afternoon. On the question of the extension of article 50, is he, like me, not hearing from interlocutors in the EU that the EU would be unlikely to grant an extension of the article 50 period for further negotiation, but that it would grant an extension of the article 50 period for either a general election or a people’s vote?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention. As the hon. and learned Lady knows, I have had a number of discussions about the issue of extension with the Commission, the Council and various EU countries. The clear message from them is that the only basis for an extension would be if it was coupled with a good reason for the extension. Therefore, again, that is why we need to get onto the debate about what happens if and when this deal is voted down because these are very serious considerations.

Norman Lamb: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is grotesque and obscene that we have a homelessness crisis in this country, which is visible right outside this building; elderly people not getting the care they need; special needs children not getting proper support; people waiting far too long for mental health support; and hospitals full up—all burning injustices—and this Conservative Government are spending billions of pounds preparing for a no deal, which is not necessary?

Keir Starmer: I do agree. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I am given to understand that, tragically, one of those sleeping just outside the entrance and exit to this place died in the past 24 hours, and that underscores the point that has just been made.

Alex Chalk: The words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are that it is highly unlikely that there will be meaningful changes to this deal. If that is right, does he agree that it is vanishingly unlikely that a completely new deal along the lines that Labour, or indeed anyone else, might propose would also be agreed by the 29 March timetable? If that is right, and if it is also right that the EU would not extend article 50 to renegotiate a new deal, it effectively means that, by not supporting this deal, the Labour party risks becoming the handmaiden to no deal, and that is a real concern, does he not agree?

Keir Starmer: No, I do not accept that. I have had more conversations with people in Brussels than probably most people in this House about the question—the very important question—of what the position would be if the red lines that the Prime Minister laid down were different. The EU’s position in private is confidential. Its position in public has been repeated over and again. It has said that if the red lines had been different, a different negotiation could have happened. If the logical conclusion to the hon. Gentleman’s point is that we on these Benches must simply support whatever the Prime Minister brings back because no deal is worse, then that is an extraordinary position. It means that there is no  critical analysis and no challenge even if it is a bad deal, or the wrong deal for the country, and that, somehow, we must support it because of this binary choice, and we will not do so.

Paul Sweeney: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a very powerful speech about the absurd lack of leadership from the Government on this critical issue facing our country. Does he recognise that a cross-party letter, which was published on Monday and organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), has confirmed that, indeed, 19 Members on the Government Benches support ruling out a no-deal option in the national interest? Therefore, it is a matter of mere arithmetic that there is certainly no support for a no-deal crash out of the European option in this House. It is the duty of this Government to come to this House immediately and reflect the wishes of Parliament.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention, and I agree with it.

Wayne David: rose—

Keir Starmer: I am not sure that I am making a speech; I think that I am responding to interventions. I will take one more and then I really will make some progress.

Wayne David: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Does he agree that it is significant that, this morning, the new First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, had a meeting with the Prime Minister and told her very clearly that she had a moral obligation to make sure that this country did not leave the EU without a deal?

Keir Starmer: I agree with my hon. Friend. I will take further interventions when I have made some progress.
The point that I am really making is that leaving the EU on 29 March next year without a deal is simply not viable, and I do not think that any responsible Government would do it.

Rushanara Ali: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Keir Starmer: I will give way in a moment.
Treasury estimates of a no deal outcome would mean a 9.3% decline in GDP over 15 years. That would be an act of economic self-harm that no responsible Government should take. It would see every region of the UK worse off and would mean that there would be no common security arrangements in place and, of course, a hard border in Northern Ireland. In any event, the truth is that the Government simply have not prepared for it and it is now too late.
Let me give two very specific but obvious examples. Over the summer, the previous Brexit Secretary published 106 technical notices—the Government’s view of what needed to be done in order to prepare for no deal. What comes out of those 106 documents is that, taken together, they commit the Government to the creation or expansion of 15 quangos, further legislation in 51 areas, the negotiation of 40 new international agreements with the EU or  others, and the introduction of 55 new systems and processes. That is the Government’s own analysis of what they need to do to prepare for no deal. Let us just stand back and consider that. The meaningful vote is scheduled for the week of 14 January. It is then just over nine weeks to 29 March. It is simply not credible to pretend that even the bare minimum in the Government’s own technical notices can be delivered in that nine weeks.
The second example is just so powerful. Two weeks ago today, the Chancellor answered a question from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about preparations at Dover, which is a pretty busy port—the busiest. Some of us have been down there a number of times to talk to the staff and management about what needs to be done, and they are very worried. This is what the Chancellor said:
“if we were to end up having a WTO-type trading arrangement with the European Union”,
that
“would involve some very significant infrastructure works that could not be done in a matter of months; they would take years to complete.”
However much money we throw at it now, how can we get over that problem—that the infrastructure at Dover will take years, not months? The Chancellor did not say that it would take months if there was more money; he said years, not months. The idea that we could somehow manage a no deal nine weeks after the meaningful vote only has to be put against that example to be seen to be ridiculous. This was confirmed by the National Audit Office, which said bluntly in October:
“The government does not have enough time to put in place all of the infrastructure, systems and people required for fully effective border operations on day one”.

Tom Brake: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the non-disclosure agreements that were stopping officials sharing with business the Government’s plans for no deal were lifted—I think it was only last week—to enable businesses to be aware of what the Government were planning for in relation to no deal?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that point. I think that businesses have begun to make their voice heard in the last day or two, expressing their concerns about a no deal exit.

Philippa Whitford: On 6 December in Exiting the European Union questions, when we were supposedly still in the middle of the debate on the deal, I sought reassurance about the supply of medical radioisotopes, which simply cannot be stockpiled because they have a half-life of hours. I was told to google what the French Government were doing. Well, in googling “radioisotopes” and “no deal”, I have found no reassurance. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this pantomime around no deal is frightening patients, doctors and people who run the NHS, and that it is a disgrace?

Keir Starmer: I agree wholeheartedly and thank the hon. Lady for making that point. We need only mention the reports—of course, we do not know—that there were discussions in Cabinet about medicines being supplied by ferries to show why this is not viable.

Seema Malhotra: Indeed, we have heard evidence in the Exiting the EU Committee that we could see a delay of two to three years in new medicines coming to the UK if the Government proceed as they intend. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that while the cost to businesses is now being talked about far more openly, there is a real cost to our citizens, with a leaked Department for Work and Pensions report suggesting that the Government are planning a strategy to deal with potential rising homelessness, poverty and suicide? Is this not a horrific place for our country to have reached, and far removed from what people thought they were voting for?

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that intervention; I heard that point made earlier in a point of order. My hon. Friend underscores not just the concern about that very issue but the fact that the Government should have made a statement today about no deal preparations. It is unsatisfactory that we have had to go through this process just to get a debate. There should have been a statement so that Members could then ask specific questions of the Government about exactly those sorts of issues.
If anyone thinks that the EU is going to ride to the rescue and put in place a raft of reciprocal side deals, or waive their rules and laws for the UK, I would encourage them to read the EU’s plans for no deal, which were updated and published only at lunchtime today. On contingency measures, the EU says that they will only be taken where strictly necessary and in the interests of the EU, they should not replicate the benefits of membership of the Union, and they can be revoked by the EU at any time. This is what a no deal exit looks like. On information and data exchange, it says that work strands are in place such as the disconnection and adaption of databases and IT systems and other platforms for communication and information exchange to which the United Kingdom should no longer have access. On air transport, it says that UK air carriers will not be able to conduct EU-to-EU flights. On road haulage, it says that a permit system would allow for considerably less traffic than currently takes place between the Union and the United Kingdom. On goods, it says that all relevant EU legislation on imported goods and exported goods will apply after 29 March. That means customs checks, declarations, and origin tests. It means a raft of checks on agriculture. It means severe friction, and it comes nine weeks after the meaningful vote.

Janet Daby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is utterly irresponsible of the Prime Minister to threaten Members of Parliament into a deal or a no deal situation given what is happening, and given the dangers and risks? She is playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and livelihoods, and she will be responsible for causing chaos in this country if she does not rule it out right now, before we go into recess.

Keir Starmer: I agree wholeheartedly. I cannot believe that the analysis that the Opposition have undertaken is not the same as that undertaken by the Government. They know very well that no deal is not viable and they know very well the risks involved, and that calls into question the decisions that were made yesterday.

Tracy Brabin: Coming towards Christmas, I am sure that Members across the House will have people coming into their surgeries, as I have: the mum and son who lost their jobs because of Brexit and were referred to the food bank; the dad who came on another issue, breaking down, weeping and saying, “I’m having counselling, I’m on anti-depressants”, because of a no deal Brexit—he is paying workers and he is worried about their mortgages and their Christmas. When we start worrying about stockpiling food, we know that only the poorest suffer who cannot afford to stockpile and cannot afford the most expensive food. I am sure that does not happen in the restaurants in Mayfair. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree?

Keir Starmer: I do agree. I am sure that Members across the House have had concerned constituents coming up to them in advice surgeries, or on buses and trains and in the street, expressing their concern about the state of politics, the place we have got to in these negotiations, and the prospect of no deal. It is not often that members of the public talk about politics in the way that they are doing at the moment. They are talking about it in a very anxious state because they realise just how badly these negotiations have gone.

Madeleine Moon: I do not think the Government accept the level of chaos that this will provide. My Ford factory has 24 deliveries of parts a day. If one of those lorries does not arrive, the factory will have to stop production for a day, which means a loss of half a million pounds. Zimmer Biomet makes knee and hip replacements and sends all its products from the Netherlands, which arrive in our hospitals on the day of surgery. It cannot guarantee that if the lorries are not coming through. There will be chaos in every aspect of life in this country.

Keir Starmer: I am grateful for that powerful point, and it applies to the whole of manufacturing. In the last two years, I have tried to visit all the major manufacturers across the UK and see for myself the systems they are running. Automobile manufacturing is a classic example, with goods coming in from the EU all the time. Those goods are tracked, so that it is known to the hour when they will arrive. In some operations, the components arrive four hours before they go on the production line. That is why any interruption of the current arrangements poses a real threat to manufacturing and why what is said about Dover not being ready for years, not months, is significant for manufacturing.

Hilary Benn: My right hon. and learned Friend is making an extremely powerful case. Does he share my puzzlement—nay, exasperation—that some people in government and on the Government Benches appear to think that they know more and better about the implications of no deal than the businesses that make things, export things, import things and transport things? Those businesses have formed a queue to meet all of us, and no doubt Ministers, to express their concern about what this will mean. Does that not show just how irresponsible it is of the Government to suggest that this could happen?

Keir Starmer: I could not agree more. I have spoken to hundreds of businesses across the whole of the UK, either one on one or in small groups—I am not talking  about halls full of businesses—and I have not come across any business that says that no deal could be a satisfactory outcome. Anybody who suggests that businesses in some way would support that approach needs to point me to the businesses they have been talking to, because I have obviously been talking to lots of businesses that they are not talking to. In every case, when they lay out their concerns to me, I faithfully ask them whether they have said the same to the Government, and I ask them to say the same to me as they say to the Government. On a number of occasions, I have made it my business, in a friendly way, to point the Brexit Secretary to businesses that have talked to me and suggest he has a conversation with them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress, because I have given way many times.
The point is this, and it has come out through all the interventions: there is no such thing as a managed no deal. That is why I have repeatedly said that no deal is not credible and not viable. It is a political hoax intended only to put pressure on Members of this House to back the Prime Minister’s deal.
Yesterday, instead of trying to find a viable way of getting a deal through the House, the Cabinet agreed to ramp up no deal preparations, notwithstanding all the valid points that have been made. An additional £2 billion of taxpayers’ money has been allocated to that, which includes half a billion pounds to the Home Office, £400 million to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and £200 million for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. That funding will be welcomed by some in the European Research Group.
However, let us look at the reaction of businesses. The biggest customs firm inside Dover told “Channel 4 News” yesterday that crashing out of the EU without a deal would create “Armageddon” for the UK. That is business speaking. That is what it said to “Channel 4 News”. It is not me or anybody in this House; it is businesses that are running Dover telling us what they think the outcome would be. Five British business groups, including the Confederation of British Industry, said this morning:
“it is clear there is simply not enough time to prevent severe dislocation and disruption in just 100 days.”
That is the voice of business.
No wonder it is reported that there was considerable conflict of views around the Cabinet table. The Justice Secretary is reported to have told the Cabinet that a managed no deal is not a viable option. He apparently added that
“the responsibility of Cabinet ministers is not to propagate unicorns but to slay them.”
The Work and Pensions Secretary is reported to have told the Cabinet:
“Just because you’ve put a seatbelt on, it doesn’t mean you should crash the car.”
I agree with them. The first duty of the Government is to protect the public, and a no deal Brexit would put the public at risk. That is not scaremongering; it is reality.
Even if the Government did choose to push ahead with a no deal, I am convinced that Parliament would stand in their way. The overwhelming majority of Members  in this House would not countenance a no deal Brexit. I pay tribute to the, I think, now three hon. Members opposite who have already said that they would quit the Conservative party if the Government pressed ahead with no deal. I suspect that they are not alone. No Government have the right to plunge the country into chaos because of their own failure, and this Parliament will not let them.

Jim Cunningham: I am not so sure that the Government grasp the seriousness of this situation. There are 800,000 jobs in the automobile industry alone at stake and about 300,000 in the west midlands, so we have to get some sort of deal, but not the deal that these are proposing. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree about that?

Keir Starmer: I do agree, and at this stage of the negotiations, what I think should happen is that the deal should be put to a vote and the vote taken, and then we should have a grown-up conversation about what the real options are and stop pretending that some sort of managed no deal is the default position. It is not, and this House will never accept that it is the default position.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. and learned Friend has said several times—and I understand why—that this House will not allow the Government to proceed on the basis of no deal, but one of the difficulties that we have, as we have seen over the last fortnight, is that the power of the Government to manage the business and completely ignore any motions of this House that are not legally binding is quite phenomenal. Do we not need to address that inherent problem in our system if we are really going to have a chance of success?

Keir Starmer: That is a very powerful point, and what the last few weeks have shown are some of the inadequacies in the procedures of this House. The idea that the Government can simply not move their business and do not have to have a vote on it is not acceptable. The fact that we have to have a SO 24 debate on an issue of this significance, because we cannot force a statement, shows the inadequacies.
The only other thing I would say on that very important point is this: given that there have to be at least 51 changes to legislation—even on the Government’s own analysis—under the 106 technical notices, there will be opportunities for amendments in this House, unless the Prime Minister says, “I am simply not going to take any business until April, of any sort whatsoever.” I do not think that this Prime Minister would do that. I knew her when she was Home Secretary and I was Director of Public Prosecutions. I know how seriously she takes security and counter-terrorism issues. I do not think that this Prime Minister would try to force no deal on this House without the necessary precautions—even on her own case—with legislation.

Mike Gapes: Given the experience that we had just over a week ago, what guarantees do we have that the Prime Minister will not, on 10 or 11 January, decide that she has some sign from the European Union that might mean that she will get the better deal at that point that she has not managed to get in the meantime, and then pull the vote yet again?

Keir Starmer: Well, we have no guarantees. Like everybody else, I heard various Members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet on the radio on the morning of 10 December assuring all listeners and viewers that the vote was 100% guaranteed for the next day, only for it to be pulled at the last minute.
Having shadowed three Brexit Secretaries this year alone, I know as well as anyone that the House has been consumed by Brexit. However, at the end of the year, let us look at where we are. We have a Prime Minister unable to put her deal to the vote and no prospect of further renegotiation. Rather than trying to reach across Parliament to break the deadlock, we have a Government who are now actively pursuing a policy that is not supported by the Cabinet, not supported by Parliament and not supported by the country. It is reckless and irresponsible. It is an indictment of a wasted year. Even now, I urge the Government to take no deal off the table and find a sensible way forward.

Chris Heaton-Harris: From the start, this Government have been clear that we do not expect or want a no-deal scenario. Delivering the deal negotiated with the European Union remains our top priority. It is also the best way to deliver on the democratic choice of the British people and the best way to deliver certainty to businesses and the people of our country.

Ruth George: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will make some progress, but then I will give way.
Our efforts to get this deal have not changed. However, with 100 days until we leave the European Union, the Government’s continued duty is to prepare for every eventuality, including a no-deal scenario. This is because—like it or not—no deal remains a risk if this House does not support the Prime Minister’s deal.

Matt Western: Does the Minister not accept, having heard in recent days from so many businesses and organisations around the UK, that they speak with a unified voice? Whether it be the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Engineering Employers Federation, the British Chambers of Commerce or the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, they are all unified in their position, which is that no deal is not acceptable and we cannot plan it. Does he not therefore accept that this is just a negotiating ploy—a charade that the Prime Minister is leading us on—and that all the time this is costing our businesses greatly and leading to uncertainty and to a loss of jobs?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have to say that the businesses I have visited all wanted people in this House to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal because that gives them the certainty that they require.

Wera Hobhouse: Is it not true, however, that if businesses were given a real choice, they would actually prefer to stay in the European Union altogether? The only argument that the Prime Minister is putting forward is that the people have voted but, in that  majority vote of 17.4 million, a considerable number of people voted to leave the European Union without any deal. If the Government are finally to put that fantasy to bed, it would look entirely different if we put the vote back to the people, which is what we should do anyway.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I get the feeling that the hon. Lady would not accept the result of a referendum that went against her in any shape or form. I am afraid I just say that the Prime Minister has negotiated a very good deal for this country, so the best way to guarantee certainty to businesses and the people of our country is to vote for that deal.

Ruth George: The businesses I have spoken to in Brexit summits in my constituency have said that the deal on the table from the Prime Minister gives no certainty whatsoever. It is simply a stopgap until the end of 2020. After that, the future declaration is not legally binding and we will not even have the same Prime Minister in place to negotiate and deliver it. It is the worst of all possible worlds.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have to disagree with the hon. Lady. I have met plenty of businesses. Indeed, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) on the Opposition Front Bench and I share a very big manufacturing business called Cummins, which is a very strong advocate for certainty in this area and has written to hon. Members asking us to vote for the deal.

Paul Sweeney: The Minister mentions the need for certainty. Let us create some degree of certainty now and rule out the disastrous proposition of a no deal. Under no circumstances can the Government allow it. At least 19 of his Tory colleagues agree that no deal cannot be a proposition that can ever be enacted by this Government. Therefore, just rule it out now and provide some degree of certainty to business at least.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The best way to rule out a no deal is to vote for the deal we have on the table.
Extensive work to prepare for this has been under way for over two years. It was commenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) when he was in my role.

Philippa Whitford: I have to say that the Minister was quite cheeky to me, on 6 December, in telling me to google the French Government’s plans. Will he take the opportunity now to reassure the president and the deputy president of the Royal College of Radiologists, and indeed radiologists, cancer specialists and their patients up and down the UK on the provision of a safe supply of medical radioisotopes, which simply cannot be stockpiled?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and I apologise to her if I was cheeky on that particular day, but I understood that she would not believe a Minister of the Crown at this Dispatch Box when articulating what is going to happen to mitigate any problems with flow on the French side of the short straits.

Stephen Kinnock: rose—

Peter Grant: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will give way in a second. The reason for saying, “Would she google?” was that the French Assembly passed a law on the Monday before. There is a host of issues. The hon. Lady can look up what they are going to do to mitigate the problems with flow, but equally the Government have a host of mitigation solutions for this problem.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I give way to the hon. Member for Darlington, whom I mentioned.

Jenny Chapman: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene after he mentioned the factory in my constituency. I visited that factory and met staff on Friday. I wonder whether he would share with the House what Cummins said to him about the prospect of no deal.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes, I certainly can. They do not want a no deal; they want a negotiated deal and they have written to Members of this House, asking them to accept the deal that is on the table.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Minister for giving way. Members of the Committee are looking forward to taking evidence from him on no-deal planning on the Wednesday after we get back from recess. May I ask him a question about facts? No deal will mean that we lose preferential access to our nearest, largest and most important trading partners—the other countries of the EU, and the 70 countries to which we have access because of the 40 deals that the EU has negotiated. What assessment have the Government made of the additional cost to businesses of the customs declarations and rules of origin certificates that those businesses that export at the moment under that preferential access do not even have to think about, but will have to start making arrangements for the day after 29 March? How much will it cost them and what will it do to their viability?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I very much look forward to coming before the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee in the early part of the new year. I would refer him to the partnership pack. It is online, on gov.uk. There are 100 pages of what businesses need to do to make sure that they conform with any new processes that might be required in a no-deal circumstance and the elements of cost that are associated with them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: May I continue for one moment? Then I will happily give way to everyone.

Seema Malhotra: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Lady is a very persistent member of the Committee.

Seema Malhotra: Further to that point on the 40-plus trade deals that the EU has with 70 other countries, which many of our businesses will be trading with currently under preferential terms, accounting for about £150 billion of trade each year, those are set to fall straight after we leave the European Union, particularly if there is no deal, and their future is uncertain even if we have a deal. What advice is the Minister giving those businesses about how they will be trading in future?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Government are actually working to roll over all those deals, and the hon. Lady will see announcements in coming days to deal with some of those points.

Jim Cunningham: Have the Government looked at the costs that will result from our leaving the EU, whether in terms of commodities, pharmaceuticals or farming? Specifically, food prices are a big issue for the National Farmers Union, which I met a couple of weeks ago.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know that he has long-standing concerns about what would happen in the case of a no deal, but I can honestly say to him that the best way to mitigate, to stop that problem from happening, is to vote for the deal that is on the table.

Owen Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Heaton-Harris: No. I shall continue with my speech for a moment, if I may.
As I said about 20 interventions ago, extensive work to prepare for a no-deal scenario has been under way for two years; it commenced under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. For instance, we have already successfully passed critical legislation, signed international agreements, and guaranteed certain EU funding in a no-deal scenario. Further milestones will be reached and achieved in the coming days. Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker: this work continues, even during the recess period. Cabinet has now agreed to proceed with the Government’s next phase of no-deal planning. We have reached the point where we need to accelerate and intensify preparations, and this means we will set in motion our remaining no-deal plans, including finalising the international agreements and delivering the legislation we need.

Owen Smith: The Minister talks about accelerating the plans. Why does he not just acknowledge to the House that this is a £2 billion PR stunt? This has been completely exposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on the Opposition Front Bench as a hoax: a sham exercise trying to blackmail this House. The Minister knows—his own Government have acknowledged it—that it would cost our country 10% of GDP, or £200 billion a year, if we proceeded down this route. He does not want to be a part of a Government doing that to our country, does he?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. On the £2 billion he talks about, that is preparing for both leaving with a deal and without a deal. The Government have to prepare for both eventualities and plans are well developed.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is he trying to tell us that there are no extra costs in the preparations for no deal? Furthermore, can he confirm to the House today that none of the permanent secretaries, who are the accounting officers, at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care, HMRC, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have said to Ministers that they require special authorisation, because Ministers are asking them to spend money that is not even in line with Government policy?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I did not say that none of the £2 billion was going to no deal in that situation, and I have not heard any claims relating to what the hon. Lady said in the second part of her intervention.
The Government’s plans are well developed and have been designed—

Andrew Slaughter: I am most grateful to the Minister. I just wondered whether he would answer the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). Does the Minister admit that there is no majority in this House for no deal, that that is not going to pass and that, therefore, all he is doing is scaring businesses and scaring 5 million people, the EU citizens living in this country and UK citizens living in UK countries? Is that not political gamesmanship and an appalling way to treat people?

Chris Heaton-Harris: No. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I humbly point out to him that the House has passed legislation in this area and the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal. If anybody is trying to scare people it would be people who are raising the fear in not voting for this deal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will happily give way to my friend, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Chris Bryant: That’s me done for, isn’t it?
I honestly do not see how there is time enough, even if the Prime Minister’s deal were agreed on 14, 15 or 16 January, to get the implementation Bill in place in time for 29 March, so I am sure the Government are going to have to revoke article 50. My biggest anxiety, however, is that, if there is no deal, am I right in saying that we will, from the day after 29 March, no longer be a member of the European arrest warrant? We will, therefore, have no extradition agreement with any of the other countries in Europe from that day. Is that not putting this country’s security at risk?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman raises sensible points, but I can say to him that the best way to mitigate against all those things is to vote for the deal that is on the table.
Our plans are well developed and have been designed to provide flexibility to respond to a negotiated agreement, as well as preparing us for the eventuality of leaving without a deal.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I will just carry on for a couple more minutes and then I will happily give way to all those standing.
At the heart of the Government’s approach to preparing for a no-deal scenario is a commitment to prioritise stability for citizens, consumers and business, to ensure smooth operations of business infrastructure and public services, and to minimise any disruption to the economy. As we said on 6 December, we have made a unilateral commitment to how citizens’ rights would work in a no-deal scenario. All European Union citizens who are resident in the UK by 29 March 2019 will be eligible to apply for settled status. They will be able to live, work and study as they do today. The basis for qualifying for status would be the same as proposed in a deal scenario. EU citizens would have until 31 December 2020 to obtain a status under the scheme. Once granted a status, EU citizens would be able to leave the UK for up to five consecutive years without losing their right to return.
We are pleased that the EU has today encouraged member states also to make a generous offer on citizens’ rights—this is a step in the right direction—but we hope that member states will now go forward and guarantee this and that the EU will now open up engagement with us on other important issues. Let me be clear: a no-deal outcome and move to WTO terms, which some hon. Members have suggested would be preferable to a deal, would lead to disruption and potential harm to critical industries in the short term. We cannot solve the issues that may arise in a no-deal scenario, but we can, as a Government, mitigate them by prioritising continuity where possible. Indeed, continuity is a thread that runs through our no-deal plans.

Tom Brake: The Minister has just outlined all the risks associated with no deal. He needs now to discount and rule out no deal. No one on the Opposition Benches believes the Government will push that forward, and the Government will not succeed in convincing any Opposition Member that, because their no-deal option is so bad, the Prime Minister’s option is attractive. It is not, and we all know that.

Chris Heaton-Harris: As the right hon. Gentleman might have heard me say before, the best way to mitigate no deal is to vote for the deal on the table.

Stephen Gethins: We have said that the Minister must rule out no deal. Members across the Chamber from all parts of the UK are mindful of the devastating impact of Tory austerity on public services, and at this time he wants to spend billions more on no deal. He knows that no deal would devastate our public services even further. On that basis, will he rule out no deal?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The best way to mitigate no deal is to vote for the only deal on the table.

Stephen Kinnock: The key point about preparations for no deal is that it clearly takes two to tango. For example, we need to know what the French Government are doing about the port in Calais. The head of HMRC told the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union recently that the French Government were categorically not talking to him about Calais because  they could not do so under the terms of article 50—bilateral contacts are not allowed—and the French Government have legislation stating that, in the case of the UK withdrawing from the EU without an agreement, British nationals and their family members residing in France would be staying illegally. Will the Minister please explain what he is doing to get the French Government to participate in his no-deal preparations?

Chris Heaton-Harris: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the debate in the French Assembly only last week, he would have heard a French Minister say that the package to UK citizens living in France would be the most generous possible—[Interruption.] No, Madame Loiseau has said that on the record. He would also have heard that the number of border checkpoints at Calais would increase from two to 10, that a border inspection post would be built and that technology would also be used, with the sole purpose of ensuring the flow of goods on the Calais side of the short strait.
It has always been our intention to accelerate no-deal preparations if needed as we neared Brexit day, although our hope has always been that we leave with a deal and that they will not be needed. Our communication with businesses and the wider public about a no-deal scenario will likewise increase as we approach our exit from the EU, until such time as we can be confident that planning for no deal is no longer needed. We now recommend that businesses also ensure they are prepared and enact their own no-deal plans as they judge necessary. In the coming weeks, and until the deal is secured and ratified by the House, we will also publish further advice on the steps that people, including UK nationals living in the EU and EU citizens living here in the UK, may need to take to prepare for our exit from the EU.

Stella Creasy: The Minister says that no one wants no deal. I think that that is generally the considered view of the vast majority of the House, and it is not hard to see why. We see our constituents losing their jobs now. We see the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care spending money on fridges now. We see billions of pounds being spent on arguments about whether we are going to have the Army at the ports. We are in this position because of the way in which the Government have proceeded.
I know that this place is not given to introspection, but does the Minister accept any responsibility—do the Government accept any responsibility—for how it has come to this? Would the Minister care to say what he would have liked the Government to do differently, so that we could have avoided this? I promise him that if he just says that everybody should vote for his deal, people will laugh, but the public will be watching all of us and wondering what 2019 will bring, so will he please give a decent answer to our constituents?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have to say that I think the decent answer is the one that the hon. Lady would expect from me. I hear what she is saying, I really do. I should love to have a moment of introspection—I should have loved to be in the negotiating room—but we now have on the table a very good deal for this country, and the best way to mitigate a no-deal scenario is to vote for that deal.

Nick Smith: The Government are very short of legislative time to prepare for no deal. Will the Minister outline the process for possibly extending article 50?

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a matter of Government policy that we will not be revoking article 50.
As I said earlier, work preparing for no deal is not just starting now. As a responsible Government, we have spent more than two years making extensive preparations for all scenarios, including no deal. For instance, over the summer we published the 106 technical notices to which the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) referred. They contained, among many other items, guidance for the public on travelling to the EU, covering driving, passports, pet passports and flights; advice for businesses on various changes, including changes relating to data protection, copyright and intellectual property; and guidance for organisations that receive EU funding on how they can continue to receive it in a no-deal scenario.
Since then, we have taken further steps to ensure that people and businesses are ready. That has included publishing more than 100 pages of guidance for businesses on processes and procedures at the border in a no-deal scenario; contacting 145,000 businesses that trade with the EU, telling them to start getting ready for no-deal customs procedures; advising hundreds of ports of entry, traders, pharmaceutical firms and other organisations that use the border about the disruption that they might experience so that they can get their supply chains ready; and producing a paper on citizens’ rights, giving people clarity about their future and the fact that they will be able to continue to live their lives as they do now.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being extremely generous in taking interventions. The Speaker said earlier that there was no cap on repetition in the Chamber, but I think that he has won the award today.
My I gently say to the Minister that publishing documents day after day is not preparing this country? We are coming up to Christmas, and in three months we will leave the European Union. Businessmen are busy running their businesses and employing people, and we are approaching the end of the road. The Minister has said that it is not Government policy to extend article 50, but does he agree that it is legally possible to extend or, indeed, revoke it?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Many Members want to speak, and we are running out of time. The debate must finish at 7 pm, so please, let us be courteous to everyone.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is Government policy that we will not revoke article 50, but I hear what the hon. Lady says. She will hear, in the coming days and weeks, why the Cabinet took the decision to increase the pace of our no-deal preparation, and she will hear a lot more about what the Government are doing, and what we are asking businesses to do, should we reach the unlikely point of a no-deal scenario.

Richard Burden: The Minister has made very clear, on several occasions, that he thinks that the best way of avoiding the no-deal   situation that he does not want to see is to vote for the deal. Does he accept that his preferred “best way” may not—indeed, is unlikely to—come to pass? Is he really telling the House that if, in his view, the best is not possible, the extent of his ambition, and the Government’s ambition, is to mitigate the disaster of no deal, when he has the option of avoiding it by ruling it out?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman is a sensible and long-standing Member of this House with great connections to the auto trade and many other businesses in his constituency, and I would like to think that he will be listening to them over the course of the next few weeks, and that perhaps he can be persuaded that the deal on the table is the best one for this country, for businesses and for certainty in this area.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am not going to give way again for another few seconds.
To answer a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, we have brought forward legislation that takes account of different scenarios, including the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, and I am sure that a number of Members present today have sat diligently in Committees ensuring that the secondary legislation we require is well scrutinised. We are confident of the UK’s long-term prospects in all scenarios, and we will ensure that the public finances and the UK economy remain strong, and we have taken extensive steps to provide businesses and citizens with advice and guidance aimed at helping to mitigate the potential impacts of not having a deal.

Geraint Davies: Will the Minister confirm or deny reports put out that the Army is on standby to slaughter thousands of lambs in the event of a no deal? We put that to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the Select Committee and he said he had no knowledge of this. I therefore wonder whether this is No. 10 putting out scare stories to scare us into this deal.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I think it might be the hon. Gentleman who is making things up.
The Government are also ensuring that staff have the correct training and skills to undertake this preparation effectively, and we are confident of the UK’s long-term prospects in all scenarios. More than 10,000 civil servants are working on Brexit with a further 5,000 in the pipeline, which will allow us to accelerate our preparation as necessary, and hopefully for a deal.

Deidre Brock: General Sir Nick Carter said on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 11 November when asked if the Army would be involved in the distribution of food and medicines:
“We’re not involved in that, no. We’re involved in thinking hard about what it might involve.”
So will the Minister tell us now what the Government intend to do with the troops they are planning to use?

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Government have no intention to use troops in our no-deal planning at all. To be absolutely clear, our priority remains delivering the deal we have negotiated with our European partners.

Matt Rodda: The Minister is being very gracious in giving way to a large number of Members. He mentioned many different sectors and has referred to many colleagues’ questions about them. My question is about the health service and in particular my local hospital, the Royal Berks in Reading. Some 12.5% of the staff of the hospital come from the EU, including many doctors, nurses and other clinicians. They are seriously concerned about the prospect of no deal, and, at a time when the NHS is losing many valuable staff, recruitment and retention are a serious issue for the service. It is facing its greatest winter crisis for many years. Surely the Minister can look into this issue and provide greater reassurance. Ultimately I believe that it is the most overwhelming argument for the Government to reject the prospect of no deal.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I hear the hon. Gentleman’s heartfelt concerns, but I point him to the Government announcement earlier in December that guarantees for the people he is rightly concerned about, and who work so hard for us all in our health service and our other sectors, the rights and assurances they deserve.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am afraid not. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is the one person in the House I can say that to: no.
We are confident of the UK’s long-term prospects in all scenarios, and we will ensure that the public finances and the UK economy remain strong, but with our EU exit approaching, we are accelerating our preparations as planned. It is the responsible thing to do, and we ask and recommend that people and businesses across the UK take the actions they judge to be necessary to be ready for leaving on 29 March next year.

Peter Grant: I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on securing this emergency debate, and we are grateful to Mr Speaker for allowing it at such short notice. This is another instance of the parliamentarians of these four nations having the opportunity to debate what is by far the most serious and urgent matter affecting all of our constituents today, yet we debate it not with the support of the Government, but in spite of the Government; not a single Government Back Bencher stood in support of the application earlier.
For more than two years, the Government did next to nothing to plan for a no-deal Brexit, despite constantly telling us that no deal was better than a bad deal. Now, when everybody bar the Prime Minister realises that she has brought back a bad deal, we are suddenly being told that this bad deal is better than no deal after all. Practically the only positive thing that can be said about the Prime Minister’s deal is that it is not quite as bad as no deal. The Government are spending a fortune on a massive propaganda campaign to try to get businesses and constituents to put pressure on us to support the deal. They are touring all around the British Isles—the  Prime Minister did not go to Glasgow, but she went to Renfrewshire for 20 minutes—but they are not doing this to talk up the benefits of the Prime Minister’s deal, because that would not take very long at all, would it? They are doing it talk up the likelihood of no deal. They are quite deliberately setting out to scare businesses and institutions, in the knowledge that that will encourage them to put pressure on us.
I can give the House an example of how transparent this is. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland arranged for a number of businesses and other bodies from Northern Ireland to come over here for a day, and she invited us all to go and speak to them about their concerns over a no-deal Brexit. They were there at the invitation of the Government to talk us out of no deal. I did not have time to speak to them all, but I asked many organisations from Northern Ireland, “If you could have any result you wanted from these negotiations, what would it be?” Every single one of them said, “Don’t do Brexit.” So when the Prime Minister and the Minister insist that the only way to stop no deal is to support the Prime Minister’s deal, I say no it is not. We can stop Brexit altogether. If we do that, the question of no deal and a bad deal can at the very least be put back to the next time the public get the choice to make that decision. Why have the Government suddenly started to put out so much publicity about the harmful impacts of no deal? The consequences of no deal have not changed. They were there for us all to see on the day after the referendum. Let us face it, they were there for all to see on the day before the referendum as well.
I commend the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), for securing this debate, and I earnestly hope that we can work together, along with a number of Government Members and with other parties here, to try to stop this madness altogether, but we cannot forget that the position we are now in was entirely foreseeable when Parliament gave the Prime Minister unconditional authorisation to trigger article 50. Disastrous failing has undoubtedly followed disastrous failing on the part of Her Majesty’s Government at every stage in the process, but there has also been a disastrous failing on the part of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. When they needed to oppose, they singularly failed to do so—with, I stress, some honourable exceptions.
I do not propose to spend much time on a line-by-line analysis of the £4 billion that has already been taken away from our health service, our police, our local authorities and other essential services to pay for the Government’s incompetence, because, although that is an eye-watering sum in anyone’s book, it is peanuts compared with the true cost of a no-deal Brexit, or indeed any kind of Brexit at all. I just want to draw attention to one line of that departmental allocation. It is not the biggest sum, by any stretch of the imagination, at less than 0.5% of the total, but to me it is the one that should warn us not to go anywhere near a no-deal Brexit in any circumstances. We know that £16 million extra has been allocated to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I hope that no one in this Chamber can avoid a shudder at hearing that. A no-deal Brexit means that we need an additional £16 million for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. What do the Government think it is for? I can tell the House that it is not for extra traffic wardens.
I am astonished that we should ever need to remind anyone of what is at stake in Northern Ireland if we leave without a deal that secures the permanent status of the peace process, yet only two days ago, the Democratic Unionist party spokesperson on Brexit, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), asked the Prime Minister:
“Would it not be far better to walk away now with £39 billion in her pocket and with her hands free”?—[Official Report, 17 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 548.]
No, it would not. The vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland are saying just now, “Do not walk away with no deal in any circumstances whatsoever.” The price that Northern Ireland would have to pay for a no-deal Brexit cannot be measured in sums of money, but if it could, it would be well in excess of £4 billion.
The Government’s motivation for suddenly turning up the heat on no deal is as transparent as it is manipulative. They know that they cannot get a majority in Parliament for the Prime Minister’s deal. Instead of accepting that and seeking to build a consensus that could get parliamentary support, which incidentally is something the Prime Minister of a minority Government should have been doing from day one, at the last minute the Government are seeking to coerce Parliament—some people might go as far as to say that they are seeking to blackmail Parliament—into voting for the Prime Minister’s deal by making no deal the only other option.
The Prime Minister still insists that no deal is the only alternative, but that is not true, and we know from her own words that it is not true. She has tried the usual negotiating tactics. For example, when someone negotiates with two different sets of people in different directions, they put them in separate rooms and give the first set a scare story to persuade them to move towards them, and then they give the second set a scare story to persuade them to do the same. However, the Prime Minister made the mistake of telling everyone the same scare story at the same time. In the Chamber, when everyone was here, she warned the no Brexit brigade in her own party, “If you don’t vote for this deal, there will be no deal.” Then she warned the no deal brigade, “If you don’t vote for this deal, there will be no Brexit.”
The Prime Minister has put three options on the table. When we come to a meaningful vote, whether in this place or whether the public get a say, the third option of not leaving must be put back on the table. If she thought for one second that her deal would get more support in this House, or among the citizens of these four nations, than not leaving at all, she would be the first to put that question to a vote. The reason she will not ask the people again about Brexit is that she knows what the answer would be.
There have always been other options, but the Prime Minister has been too blinkered and dogmatic to recognise that they existed. Compromises were available. Some were offered two years ago by the Scottish Government, but she paid so little attention that I think she has forgotten they even existed. She must have forgotten that they existed, because when she came here to present her deal and said, “Nobody has ever put forward an alternative option,” she of course spoke in good faith—because everybody who speaks in Parliament does so in good faith. The only explanation must be that this document, presented to her by the national Government of one of our four nations, meant so little to her that she forgot it even existed.

Philippa Whitford: Was not the Prime Minister’s fatal mistake to have painted herself into a corner with red lines before doing the first impact assessment, because otherwise she could have looked at what the best alternative was?

Peter Grant: I accept that is one of the disastrous mistakes the Prime Minister has made. We must remember that over the past few weeks, while the Government kept telling us, “But everyone in Europe has said that this is the only deal possible,” what they said was, “This is the only deal possible, given the firm negotiating stance that the United Kingdom has set.” That has been made perfectly clear, and I have no doubt that the Government have been told that by their contacts in Europe as well. Had the Prime Minister not painted herself into a corner with the stupid and unnecessary red lines, she would now have a much more workable deal that might well have got the acceptance if not the support of a significantly greater number of Members of this House.
One of the many examples of the almost despotic arrogance that we have seen from the Prime Minister is the fact that she, and she alone, appears to know exactly what was in the minds of the 17.5 million people when they put their mark against “Leave” on the ballot paper. None of us can know that for certain. I would never have the arrogance to say that I know what was in someone else’s mind, which is why I never call into question the motivations or integrity of those who happened to vote a different way from me. None of us can know for certain, but does anyone seriously believe that even a tiny fraction of those 17.5 million people voted for lower living standards, for food shortages, for the possibility that patient safety, and even patients’ lives, will be put at risk as a result of difficulties in getting essential medical supplies to them, for the possibility of troops on the streets to quell violent civil disorder, or for the likelihood of God only knows what for the future of Northern Ireland? I do not know what those 17.5 million people voted for, but I would be astonished if anything more than a tiny fraction voted for that kind of nightmare scenario, all of which is taken either from official Government statements or from unofficial and unattributable Government briefings.

Wera Hobhouse: I have said that again and again. Some 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. As we know from Government Members, within that leave vote people are split. So can the Government tell us—I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s views—how many of those 17.4 million people voted to leave without a deal and how many voted for the deal that the Prime Minister has brought back? Taken together, when we consider the split in the leave vote, the majority of people are actually for staying in the European Union, which is why we need a people’s vote.

Peter Grant: The referendum was a choice between one very definite answer on one side and an infinite number of possibilities on the other. One of my hon. Friends said at the time, “We know people have voted to leave, but we have no idea where they have voted to go.” The Prime Minister quickly shut down that discussion by defining what people had decided to do, and then she has the cheek to tell us that we are somehow being anti-democratic if we think perhaps the 17.5 million people voted for something else.

Deidre Brock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the first EU referendum was won on a tissue of lies, undeliverable promises and illegalities and that we should undo the rough wooing of the Brexit referendum and rededicate the decision to the people?

Peter Grant: There is no doubt at all that the EU referendum, as well as having the biggest participation of UK citizens in any democratic test, was also the most corrupt and most dishonest there has ever been and, I sincerely hope, we will ever see. Revelations are still coming out, even today, about the illegalities, some of which I suspect will never be brought to account. The penalties imposed on those who corrupt the democratic process are puny compared with what happens to a person who is found to have attempted to corrupt the full course of justice, so there is clearly a question that has to be addressed in future legislation.
We know that the calamitous effects of no deal are not what the majority of leave voters voted for.

Tom Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Grant: Not just now.
It is not what they were promised either in the Government’s information or by the leave campaign. It is not what they voted for, and I believe it is the absolute duty of this Parliament and of this Government to make sure it is not what they get. It would be an unpardonable dereliction of duty for the Government, or anyone else, deliberately to use the procedures of this House in such a way as to maximise the danger of the worst possible outcome, the least-favoured outcome, simply because it is the only conceivable way to deliver an outcome that the Prime Minister has decided she wants but which practically nobody else in this Parliament wants.
In the past few days, as was mentioned earlier, a number of Conservative MPs have said publicly that they are likely to resign the party Whip if it looks as though the Prime Minister is herding us towards a no-deal Brexit. I would not want to see anyone put in that position.
I have respect for a number of Conservative MPs—for most Conservative MPs, in fact—even though I disagree with them, and I do not think any of them will hand back their party card easily or with a light heart, but think about it. It would not need many more Tory MPs to do that before suddenly, even with the Democratic Unionist party, the Government no longer have a working majority. There is already a motion of no confidence in the Government on the Order Paper, and it would take only one signature on that motion, and a few more people in the Conservative party to decide to put the countries of this Union before narrow party advantage, and suddenly the entire Government, not just the Prime Minister, would find that their jaikets were on the shoogliest of shoogly nails. That might be what concentrates minds, which would be welcome, but what does it say about the state of British politics when hundreds of thousands of other people’s jobs can be sacrificed by the Cabinet for an ideologically driven hard Brexit but a threat to their own jobs suddenly makes them sit up and take notice?
Ultimately, whatever voting procedure the Government decide to use whenever, if ever, we get to that vote, Parliament will be faced with a choice between two final options, and no deal cannot be one of them. Think about  what happens in, to take a random example, a Conservative party leadership election. I understand that quite a few Conservative Members had reason to check the rules recently. If there are more than two candidates, they go through a series of eliminations, with the least supported candidate dropping off at the end of each round and the election finishing with a run-off between the two most supported candidates.
If that process is good enough to pick a temporary, sometimes extremely temporary, leader of the Conservative party, why cannot we do it for the most important peacetime decision these islands have ever taken? If we did that, no deal would be off the table before we started, which would ease a lot of the concerns that the Government are now quite deliberately fuelling.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman then confirm his support for my European Union (Revocation of Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which I presented yesterday? The Bill would basically rule out no deal, and unless a deal is agreed in a public vote, we would stay in the EU.

Peter Grant: I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question, because I have co-sponsored his Bill, although if I had realised that that meant I was expected to be here to speak on his Bill on Burns Day next year, I might have thought other about it.
I do not think it is acceptable, and it will be forever held up as a mark of shame on this entire Parliament, that it is left to Opposition Back Benchers to try to use procedural methods to force the Government to allow Parliament to give the decision that Parliament wants to give, rather than trying to force Parliament to give a decision that we really do not want to give in preference to decision that we really, really do not want to give. When it comes to a decision, by whatever process, it is not acceptable, it is anti-democratic and, in terms of sovereignty of the people of Scotland and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland, it is unconstitutional to force us into a situation where no deal is one of only two deals left on the table. No deal can be ruled out and should be ruled out. For all the parroting of this and other Ministers, it is not up to Parliament to take no deal off the table by accepting an unacceptable deal. It is up to the Government to take it off the table right now by saying that no matter what happens, they will not impose it on us and on everybody else.
When it comes to a final decision, the two options available to us have to be the ones most likely to be accepted by as many MPs as possible, even if they are not supported by as many MPs as possible. I will not support anything that takes us out of the EU, but I might be willing, reluctantly, to accept something that is less disastrous than what we are faced with just now. The final choice cannot be between the Prime Minister’s deal and no deal. The combined Parliament of our four nations and the citizens of our four nations must be given a choice, and that choice, if it is to be a fair choice, can only be between the Prime Minister’s Brexit and no Brexit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not imposing this, but may I suggest that people speak for about five minutes, as I think we would then get everybody in before the end at 7?

Charles Walker: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The greatest political movement of the 20th century was undoubtedly the Labour party. It transformed that century; it came from nowhere and literally changed the landscape of this country. Its greatest Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, was educated 10 miles from where I live. So I have to ask the Labour party: what on earth is it doing at the moment? What on earth is it doing with the national interest? We have a Prime Minister who is breaking herself, duty bound to get a deal for this country that ensures we leave with a deal, yet the shadow Secretary of State is saying, “No matter what she brings back, the Opposition will reject it, but no deal is not an option.” I know some Labour Members spend a huge amount of time with their constituents, but surely they are hearing their constituents say, “Look, let’s just take what the Prime Minister is bringing back”—[Interruption.] That is what they are saying. They are saying, “Let’s take what the Prime Minister is bringing back and let’s move on as a country.” I tell hon. Members that in January, when the Prime Minister presents her deal at the Dispatch Box, one that she has pursued tirelessly on behalf of this country without rest or break, and the Labour party votes against it and then says that no deal is not good enough, the people of this country will work out who is responsible for where we end up. It will not be Conservative Members; there will be a few on our Benches, but it will be Opposition Members, and they will pay the political price.
I have huge respect for the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), but he cannot camouflage his desire to see a second referendum with promises and pledges that say, “I have six tests that need to be met.” He is possibly the only person who knows what those six tests are—the country has not got a clue. We then have this idea that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who leads a peripatetic caravan of chaos on the Opposition Benches, could go to the EU and negotiate a better deal. This is the man who, after the poisonings in Salisbury said, “We need to go and have a chat with Putin to find out what his problems are.” It is just not realistic—and the British public know it. The Labour party is playing fast and loose with this country’s future.
I have not spoken in these debates. As Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I have worked tirelessly for a year and a half to ensure that both sides have a fair rub of the green. I was not going to speak today, but then I heard that there was to be another debate under Standing Order No. 24 so that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could say the same thing over and over again, which is, “Whatever deal the Prime Minister brings back, it will not be good enough, but my word—I am not going to tolerate leaving with no deal!” Why can he not be honest and just say, “I want a second referendum”? That is what he wants. He wants a second referendum. He wants to thwart the will of the people for the people. That is what the people’s vote is: “I will thwart the will of the people for the people.” It is an entirely dishonest position.
Opinion polls go up and down—they fluctuate. It will not have escaped the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s attention that my party has had a huge amount of difficulty over the past week, but this week we are four points ahead of Her Majesty’s Opposition. The reason  is that the public have worked out that the Opposition are being dishonest with the truth. Members should by all means go through the Division Lobby in January and vote against the deal, but the public will not believe for a minute that it was done in the national interest. It will have been done in self-interest. The Labour party no longer cares about or knows about the national interest, and it is a disgrace. I started my speech by saying that the Labour party was the greatest political movement of the 20th century, but it is now beginning to look like a rabble.

Margaret Beckett: I am really sorry and dismayed to have heard what the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) just said, because I have high regard and respect for him. I simply say to him that he could not be more wrong. He talked with great respect of the work that the Prime Minister has put in; she has made one catastrophic misjudgment after another and it is she who is threatening the national interest. Furthermore, she is in gross dereliction of her most serious duties as the Prime Minister. She is playing an extraordinarily dangerous game. There is every possibility that there is a risk that we will stumble into no deal.
Way back in the beginning, when the referendum result first came into being, I had hoped that there might be a deal that we could vote for that would mitigate the damage. I have been driven to the conclusion that that is not the case mostly because of the catastrophic mess that the Prime Minister has made of the negotiations. As the hon. Member for Broxbourne knows, I have conducted many negotiations myself, so I know whereof I speak. She could not have conducted it worse if she had thought for a week. The dangerous game that she is playing means that, as I said, she is risking our stumbling into a no-deal position.
I really felt for the Minister today. I am happy to say that I have never quite been in the position that he was in at the Dispatch Box, but I have been at the Dispatch Box defending a difficult case, and I felt for him because the only answer that he had to any question that anybody asked him was, “All you need to do is vote for the Prime Minister’s deal.” I suggest that he and the hon. Member for Broxbourne put that argument forward with a greater degree of caution than they have so far. My understanding—my perception—is that most people in this House do not think the Prime Minister’s deal delivers on the promises made to those who voted leave. That is one of the reasons why there is so much opposition to it, irrespective of the point of view held by different individuals.
I shall say this briefly, because I am conscious of how many people want to speak. The people who are going to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal—there will be some—are happy because they think that they will be able to go out and say to the British people, “Those of you who voted leave, we delivered on your mandate.” I think they are going to lose, but let us say that I am mistaken and they win, and they get this deal through, or some variety on the theme of this deal. I hear people talk about the Norway option, although it is far from clear to me that the European economic area has any intention of accepting Britain into membership. Let us put that aside for the moment, though and let us say that either the Prime Minister’s deal or some minor  variant of it carries. What happens then? That is why I say to the hon. Member for Broxbourne that he is absolutely wrong about the national interest. What happens then is that people will see that there are still high levels of immigration; they will see that we are still making payments to the European Union; they will see that we still have a link to the European Court; and they will see that we are still bound by the rules and regulations of the European Union, although we no longer have any voice in deciding what they are. Perhaps most of all, they will see that one of the Prime Minister’s simplest promises—vote for my deal and it will all be over—could not be less true. It will not be over; it will barely have begun. The worst and the most difficult of the negotiations will still be to come, and that will rumble on for years and years.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman why he is wrong about where the national interest lies. Anybody who thinks longer than perhaps a month or so, or six months, beyond the date of decision should think about this very hard: I suspect that the greatest possible disillusion will come if the Prime Minister’s deal, or something like it, goes through, because then people will find out that they are in the circumstances that her deal leaves us in. I cannot think of anything more likely to make people utterly disillusioned with politics and politicians than realising that they have been told, or promised, “Oh, it’s alright, we voted for this. We have left the European Union”, when it does not mean any of the things that they thought it would mean. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant). I have been driven to the view that what we should do in the national interest—it is the only thing to do in the national interest—is to delay article 50, to put in place procedures for a people’s vote, because it is right for it to go back to the people, and to suggest that we leave it to them but to say that we should stay in the European Union.
The Prime Minister has talked today, as she so often does, of the duty and responsibility of hon. Members when she is in complete dereliction of her own duty. I say that the biggest duty that any of us has is to tell people the truth and it is time that we got on with it.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett).
We are living in the most serious of times, and I think that that is very clear to all of us. What we are discussing today is of such great import that there should be a reaching out across the Front Benches, as I have said in this place more than once. It is incumbent on the Government to do that and it is also incumbent on the Opposition to do that.
I will largely restrict my remarks to why I believe that no deal should not and must not happen—indeed, I was one of those who signed the letter co-signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). A no deal would cause such grave disruption to the businesses in my constituency in the west midlands and further afield.
Let us just look at what no deal means. No deal means going on World Trade Organisation terms. These have been lauded in some quarters. I disagree. I have been involved in international trade for most of my working life. Yes, the WTO provides the lowest common denominator for world trade. It provides for nothing more than that. Those who think that a country such as the United Kingdom will thrive on World Trade Organisation terms, which no other major country thinks are anything like sufficient, are deluded. Indeed, no other country of our size has World Trade Organisation membership without several other additional agreements, whether it is with China, the United States or wherever. They all have agreements with their neighbouring countries for a start.
Let us look at what World Trade Organisation means on a day-to-day basis: it means tariffs. We do not have tariffs with the European Union at the moment, but it will mean tariffs. Much more importantly, it will mean the non-tariff barriers that have already been mentioned, whether that is phytosanitary inspections, veterinary inspections and other types of inspections of borders. I, along with colleagues from the Exiting the European Union Committee, have seen what happens at Dover. It is a smooth flow of trucks through the port—one every few seconds. A slight delay, which we have seen for other reasons, causes massive back-ups. This is simply not possible, and that will happen at other ports as well.
World Trade Organisation terms would also mean that we would have to deal with the separation of the quotas that we have as part of the European Union. This will not be easy. For instance, New Zealand has questions about how its quota of lamb to the European Union will be divided between the UK and the EU27. We will not have the benefit of the 40 free trade agreements that cover about 70 different countries, unless they are rolled over. It is going to be difficult enough to roll all those over if we sign the withdrawal agreement; if we do not, it will be next to impossible and I do not believe that we have the capacity or time to do that. And that is just for goods.
For services, World Trade Organisation terms would mean a very basic agreement. Whatever has been said about the failure of the European Union to complete the single market in services, it is nevertheless a much better market for services than WTO rules.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, struggle to some extent with those who advocate falling back on World Trade Organisation rules, because they then talk about very comprehensive free trade agreements that in many ways seek to replicate the European Union?

Jeremy Lefroy: The right hon. Gentleman is precisely right. We would be going back several steps only to try to come forward a few steps.
Let me turn to the new trade agreements. Members have already mentioned how difficult it will be to negotiate the new agreement with the European Union. I agree, but I think it will be possible and it will be an excellent agreement. That is why I am going to support the Prime Minister when it comes to the vote in January. However, let us just think about how much more difficult it will be to negotiate that new agreement if we go without a deal. In effect, relations will have broken completely between the United Kingdom and the European Union. There  will be so many other things to have to deal with that the prospect of negotiating a new trade agreement will be at the bottom of the agenda for the European Union and, to be frank, for the UK because we will be dealing with so many other things. The idea that if we come out with no deal, there will somehow be a possibility of negotiating a quick free trade agreement with the European Union to replace the great agreement that we have at the moment is ludicrous. It will not happen. It will be easier for us if we leave with the deal that is on the table.
I will very gently refer to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), because I do actually agree with him about the approach of the Labour party. I fully respect the position that the official Opposition are taking, but hon. Members should look at the Labour party’s 2017 manifesto and at the withdrawal agreement. With the exception of the Labour party’s manifesto saying that a customs union should be left on the table—if I am quoting it correctly—there is very little difference between this agreement and the manifesto that the Labour party stood on in 2017. That is why I urge both Front Benches to talk. This matter is too important for us to have a line right down the middle. It is incumbent on both sides to talk.

Adrian Bailey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who in many ways encapsulates the voice of reason on the Government Benches. I only wish that voice had been more prominent and had prevailed at an earlier stage in the negotiations.
I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in this approach, but we have to recognise that we are now engaged in one of the most dangerous and difficult exercises in parliamentary brinkmanship possible. Looking at the way in which the Prime Minister has conducted these negotiations and the measures that have been announced overnight, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the Prime Minister is trying to drive us towards a situation where Parliament has to make a choice between a bad deal and a disastrous one. If the Prime Minister were genuinely to start to take the necessary measures to avoid a no deal Brexit, it would have been necessary to take them two years ago. As my right hon. and learned Friend has made quite clear, it is actually too late to get the necessary infrastructure and the measures that would be required for a no deal situation.
What we have now is something that is profoundly damaging—above all, damaging to businesses and to the economy that is sustained by them.

Wera Hobhouse: Is it not absolutely necessary that the Government now knock these Brexit fantasies on the head and do not continue to give hope or the impression to the people of this country that something is possible when it is clearly the most damaging thing that this country could face?

Adrian Bailey: Yes. I am going to come to that in a moment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the north-east chamber of commerce that no deal would be disastrous  for our economy, that WTO rules would make it much more difficult for our businesses to be able to compete in Europe, and that we in this Chamber should be doing everything possible to stop no deal happening?

Adrian Bailey: I completely agree. I presume that Members in all parts of the House have been lobbied by representatives of the manufacturing sector. Living in a manufacturing constituency, I have had an awful lot of lobbying, and I am yet to come across any trade association or any representatives of individual companies who think that the no deal scenario is anything but a disaster.
Looking at those who seem to want a no deal scenario, I would divide them into two categories. There are the no deal deniers—those who still try to perpetuate the myth that this is all the politics of fear and that none of these things will really happen. The fact is that this is not something being generated by politicians to pursue a particular political objective—it is the words of people who have invested in companies; who make the decisions on which the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our electors depend; and who will have to implement the decisions and deal with the measures that will have to be taken if a no deal scenario actually occurs. They cannot be disregarded. There is also the myth perpetrated by Government Members that the compromise withdrawal deal that is being promoted by the Prime Minister is somehow a way forward. Certainly, some businesses have said that we should go for it on the basis that it at least buys them a bit of time before the disaster hits them. However, there is nothing in the withdrawal deal that satisfies me that that disaster would not occur.
Today, literally just before I walked into the Chamber, I had an email from a business in my constituency involved in the motor supply industry. It says:
“If we leave the EU with May’s proposed deal we will have access to the European Single Market, but no say in the development of its rules. The automotive sector is bound by enormous amounts of rules governing safety and environmental issues which constantly change. There can be no doubt that our competitor nations will use their very best endeavours to use these rules to their advantage and our disadvantage. All of the main automotive companies in the world have made it plain that they have no interest in investing in a UK that is outside the EU. May’s proposed deal would therefore lead to the decline and eventual disappearance of our industry in the UK.”
I think that is the authentic voice of the small businesses involved at the sharp end of our manufacturing sector.
No deal is also a disaster for our public finances, with £2 billion being spent on preparatory measures. What could we have spent that £2 billion on? There are so many better alternatives—I will not go into them now, but that did not come out in the course of the referendum debate. It also disregards the personal hardship, worry and concern for literally hundreds of thousands of people involved in businesses who have to face Christmas without knowing what the outcome of these negotiations will be and the potential impact on their personal finances.
It all could have been different. People have talked about the Prime Minister’s determination and sense of public duty. I agree that she has it, but that does not alter the fact that we are where we are because of the series of disastrous personal and political positions that she took. Her rhetoric at the Tory party conference was hardly that of a person who wanted to sensibly negotiate with a body such as the EU. There was also  the announcement of the red lines, the opposition to Parliament having a say on the withdrawal agreement—something that was actively fought for and grabbed by this Parliament—and the constant pandering to the no deal deniers or ideologues on the Government Benches. That is not symptomatic of someone who wanted to reach out and come to an agreement, which I think was possible at one stage.
We only have to look at the vote on triggering article 50 to realise that there was a consensus on both sides of the House at a given time that we had to go forward and respect the will of the people. I have been a remainer and a pro-European all my life, but I voted to trigger article 50 because I respected the view of the people and thought it was necessary to try to implement what they wanted. Equally, as a representative of an important manufacturing constituency, during these negotiations I could not disregard the interests of those companies and the people who work in them, which seem to have been disregarded by the Government’s policies.
This Government’s policy must be to state quite categorically that their overriding political objective is to avoid no deal and that they will take whatever measures necessary, including extending article 50 or talking to Opposition Members to see what sort of deal can be done, to ensure that we do not come out with no deal. I will conclude with a quote from the same manufacturer who contacted me just before I came here today. He says:
“Neither my employees nor I will easily forgive anyone in parliament if this disaster is not stopped before it is too late.”
Only the Government can stop it, and they can only do that by making it quite clear that no deal is not an option.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Having just come into the Chair and counted how many Members wish to speak, I am somewhat shocked. Mr Deputy Speaker said that five-minute speeches would be about right because he had an indication that a large number of Members wished to speak. Something must have been said of which I am unaware that has made nine Members decide they have nothing to say after all. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will consider that a victory. Members might be a little surprised that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) spoke without interruption from me for 10 minutes instead of five. I calculate that if Members speak for approximately six to seven minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have the opportunity to do so. It is nice to see the House behaving so well and so honourably. I hope that it will continue to do so and that I will not have to introduce an official time limit.

Liz Twist: Before I came into the House this afternoon, I, together with other north-east MPs, received a letter from the chief executive of the North East Chamber of Commerce. It is entirely apposite to the subject of this debate about the failure of the Prime Minister to bring the deal to the House and about our being able to have a vote on the deal.
The letter is absolutely to the point because it talks about the risk for manufacturing in the north-east of a no deal Brexit and the impact it will have on businesses. It talks about the need for businesses to have certainty about what is happening so that they can plan their businesses and be clear about what is needed to ensure they go forward positively in the future.
The first thing the letter talks about is the need for preparedness, which again is part of the discussion here today. The concern is that the advice from the Government and the measures being taken, which were announced yesterday, are actually too late for some, while others already have things in hand. There is a real concern about the lack of business preparedness.
It is above time that this House had the chance to have a vote on the Prime Minister’s deal and to express a view clearly. It is something that has already been delayed two weeks, and now we are going away for Christmas, so among all the concern from businesses about what will happen, we have already lost four weeks in which we could have been making a decision. This House could have been expressing a view about how we should move forward and what should be the next steps for this House.
As I say, it is now clear that the Prime Minister cannot achieve the amendments to the legal agreements that she is seeking from Europe which might make the deal acceptable to some. I say “some” because clearly not all people will be satisfied, but it might make the deal acceptable to some who object to it at present.
I want to turn to the letter from James Ramsbotham, the chief executive of the North East Chamber of Commerce. Frankly, I was tempted to read out the whole thing as my speech because it is very appropriate. However, you will pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am just going to read a bit of it. The relevant bit is where he says:
“Firms need clarity, precision and reassurance. The longer businesses wait to understand…the future UK-EU relationship, the bigger the hit to their near-term investment, expansion and confidence. What they want is to know who they will be able to hire in future, how they will pay VAT, whether their goods will be stopped at borders, and whether the contracts they enter into will be enforceable.
One processing manufacturer said, ‘Looking at WTO tariffs of 6.5%, plus fees for shipment, plus additional staffing costs to cope with the increased admin, it quickly adds up and hinders the British market from being competitive in Europe. An Industry which overall sees 75% of its goods exported into Europe could have major issues going forward with a No-Deal Brexit’.”
He also tells us that some businesses are looking to relocate because of concerns about the future.
It is no good the Minister telling us again and again that the best way to avoid no deal is to vote for the Government’s deal, because the Prime Minister’s deal does not actually satisfy those tests. It gives us some temporary relief while other discussions go on in the future under the political declaration. It does not give business the certainty that it is looking for.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It does.

Liz Twist: Well, we are going to have to disagree about this, because clearly businesses do not feel that they have such certainty. It is really important that we get on, have a vote on the deal, have that discussion and then look at where we will go forward.
I want to say to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that, like him, I am getting a very heavy email postbag from my constituents with their views. They are not saying to me, “Vote for this deal”.

Charles Walker: rose—

Liz Twist: If I may, I will just finish my point.
Some of my constituents are saying, “I voted for Brexit and this deal isn’t it, so vote against it”, and others are saying, “This deal is no good for us; I’m a remainer and I want a better deal, so vote against the deal”. I would say that that is much like the divisions we have seen in this House—on the Government side as well as anywhere else.
I just want to say that it has long been time for us to get on and have the vote on this deal, and move forward to the next stage, with a better proposition and one that we can take forward.

Ben Lake: Many hon. Members have focused their remarks on the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have on communities in their respective constituencies. I intend to speak in the same vein, but I shall also argue that it is the Government’s responsibility to rule out such an outcome without delay.
It has been widely reported that up to £5 billion could be wiped from the Welsh economy under a no-deal scenario, which equates roughly to a reduction of some 10% of the Welsh economy. EU rules, regulation and arbitration mechanisms would no longer apply to the UK as a third country, so the current flow of trade with the EU would be constrained, as unhindered access to the single market would cease. Much of the talk about stockpiling and the sufficiency of port infrastructure to support third-country produce checks has focused on Calais and Devon, but of course the potential for disruption is just as acute in Caergybi, or Holyhead—the main port for the UK’s trade with the Republic of Ireland, the UK’s fifth biggest export partner.
The consequences of a no-deal Brexit for Ceredigion, which relies on the knowledge and rural economies, are just as serious. The education sector alone accounts for 20% of our economic output, sustaining some 5,000 jobs, with over 2,800 jobs directly supported by the county’s two universities. The UK’s ability to participate in Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+—and all such schemes—will be thrown into disarray by a no-deal Brexit, and the uncertainty that will inevitably occur in such a scenario will weigh heavily on our universities’ ability to recruit EU researchers and students. It is little wonder, therefore, that the chief executive of Universities UK has said:
“A ‘no deal’ Brexit would have huge implications for universities in all corners of the UK, and prove enormously damaging for regional jobs, growth and skills.”
Furthermore, agriculture is a crucial wealth and job creation industry across rural Ceredigion. It is estimated that every £1 generated in agriculture translates into some £7.40 for the local economy through supply chains and spending, and that each job in farming supports 3.5 jobs in other sectors. It will come as no surprise to Members in the Chamber that red meat—especially lamb—exports are the backbone of the agricultural industry in Wales, and we know that the single market is a vital export destination for Welsh food and drink  in general. Over 80% of food and animal exports goes to the EU, and between 35% and 40% of all Welsh lamb produced. A no-deal Brexit, and the loss of access to that valuable export market, is simply unthinkable.
The Government are aware of the implications of a no-deal Brexit and the harm that it would cause to the economy. They are now also aware, thanks to the conclusions of the European Court of Justice, that they could avert such a course if ever it seemed likely. I consider it utterly inconceivable for any Government to be so irresponsible as to inflict upon their citizens the level of damage that a no-deal Brexit would cause. That is why I must pose the question again: why are the Government insisting on spending billions of pounds on no-deal preparations, throwing communities across the UK into debilitating uncertainty, when it is within their gift to rule out such an outcome?
The Prime Minister has the power to avoid a no deal by revoking or seeking an extension to article 50, as other hon. Members have rightly outlined this afternoon. I would argue that it is her duty to rule it out now, and dissipate the harmful and unnecessary uncertainty that the mere prospect has generated.

Stephen Kinnock: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake).
Theresa May’s disastrous handling of the Brexit negotiations is entirely of her own making. It is she who chose to interpret a narrow victory for leave as meaning that the UK must exit the single market and the customs union; it is she who decided to call a general election in the middle of the most important negotiations in our post-war history; and it is she who utterly failed to face down the hard core of English nationalists in her party who want Brexit at any cost. In among all the chaos and incompetence, however, there is one aspect of her strategy that has become crystal clear. She has been talking up the prospect of no deal in order to bounce MPs from both sides of the House into supporting whatever deal she asks us to approve. Her game plan is simple: scare the living daylights out of Parliament by repeating ad nauseam that the choice will be between her deal and no deal at all.
It is vital that Parliament rejects the Prime Minister’s scaremongering and blackmail tactics, because they are built on an empty threat. The fact is that no deal is simply not going to happen for three reasons. First, a no-deal Brexit will unleash unmitigated chaos across government, business and society. As a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee, I have heard extensive evidence from senior civil servants and business leaders about the extent to which our country is ready to absorb the shock of leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree it is not simply that we would be leaving the European Union and relying on WTO trade rules? It would mean a rupture in the whole corpus of legal arrangements that have been in place for 40 years. Such a scenario is totally unthinkable.

Stephen Kinnock: I agree entirely. Let us not forget that this will impact on people’s lives and citizens’ rights—the rights of EU citizens in the UK and British  citizens in the European Union. What will happen to the European arrest warrant? What will happen to our entire security apparatus across the EU? It is not just about trade and the WTO; it is much bigger than that.
I have been deeply impressed by the professionalism and dedication of every one of those who have come in to speak to the Select Committee to give evidence. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that they are engaged in a charade. Let us take the state of preparedness at our ports. Jon Thompson, the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, told us that his French counterparts have categorically refused to engage in bilateral discussions about how to plan for a no-deal exit, because bilateral contacts are not permitted under the terms of article 50. We can continue, should we wish to do so, to allow in goods from the EU at Dover without checks on 30 March, but we have absolutely no idea what the French are going to do at Calais in the event of no deal.
On our customs processes, Mr Thompson told us that there are currently 145,000 businesses across the UK who currently import or export their goods solely within the EU. Thanks to our membership of the customs union, not one of those businesses ever has to complete a customs declaration form because all the checks are done at the point of departure—that is, at the relevant factories, warehouses and farms. If we exit without a deal, every one of those businesses that wishes to continue trading with the EU will need to know how to complete a range of complex customs declarations. According to Mr Thompson, however, to date only 2% of the 145,000 have contacted the HMRC to seek guidance on what they should do in the event of no deal.
On health, Sir Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, told us that there is no clarity on reciprocal healthcare arrangements for UK citizens in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. This will end in the event of no deal. A British tourist in Paris needing medical treatment is currently entitled to full access to the French public healthcare system, but as of 30 March 2019 he or she may be required to hold a private insurance policy.
On legislation, Jill Rutter, director of the Institute for Government, told us that, in order to ensure that UK law is operable on 30 March 2019 in the event of no deal, a mountain of primary and secondary legislation would have to be passed. The Government have so far managed to pass six of the 13 currently announced Brexit Bills. Without a deal, they will need the Trade Bill to complete its passage through Parliament, along with other key Bills in areas such as agriculture and fisheries, as well as legislation to secure EU citizens’ rights. And then there is the mountain of secondary legislation, with between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments having to be passed by 29 March. Even if MPs were to start working on all this primary and secondary legislation now, it would be a herculean task but, as we are not even going to have the vote until the 15 or 16 January, there is no sign at all of this being able to be brought forward. We are in the realm of the impossible.

Peter Grant: Does the hon. Gentleman fear there is a significant risk that, just as the Government are trying to put unacceptable pressure on Parliament to accept a  bad deal by holding up the threat of no deal, so, as these major and often contentious pieces of legislation come through, Parliament will be put under intense pressure to agree bad legislation without proper scrutiny just because we have to get something on the statute book in time?

Stephen Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a steamroller. The tactics and strategy are based on steamrollering, bullying, blackmail and holding a gun to Parliament’s head. The purpose of this debate is to show that Parliament will not have it. We will not be bullied. We will not be presented with a false choice. We will not be blackmailed in the way the Government are attempting. It is a constitutional and democratic outrage.
Secondly, we have no idea how the EU27 would react to a no-deal exit, but draft legislation recently tabled by the French Government contains this sentence:
“In case of withdrawal of the UK from the EU without agreement, British nationals and their family members currently residing in France would be staying illegally”.
This leaves little room for doubt as to the mindset of member states’ Governments or the profound challenges that would be created for the British Government and for British citizens and businesses.
Thirdly, but not least, it is absolutely clear that there is no parliamentary majority for no deal. It is equally clear that it is impossible that the Government could consider a no-deal exit without the support of Parliament for such a course of action. The conclusion is, therefore, that a no-deal Brexit is simply not on the cards, and a responsible Government would be making that statement clearly today.
As no deal is not going to happen, and given that the Prime Minister’s deal is dead in the water, it is finally becoming clear, I hope, that there is an option that can bring Parliament together and get us through this difficult time. It is an option I have been talking about for two years now—many of my hon. Friends and colleagues from across the House will be sick to death of me banging this drum, but I will continue to do so. An EFTA-EEA-based Brexit combined with a customs union—otherwise known as the Norway-plus option—is the only option that resolves the Irish border issue and protects the jobs and livelihoods of the people we were elected to represent. It is the only option that I believe can command a cross-party parliamentary majority and which has a hope of reuniting our deeply divided country.
It is vital that Parliament hold its nerve. This is not a choice between the Prime Minister’s deal and no deal, because no deal is simply not going to happen; this is a choice between the Prime Minister’s deal and the right deal; it is a choice between caving in to the Prime Minister’s empty threats and scaremongering and standing up for the interests of our constituents; it is a choice between capitulating to a bully and asserting our sovereignty. I am confident that when the time comes Parliament will step up and do what is right for the country.

Charles Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that, when the Speaker or Deputy Speaker stands up, the Member sits down?

Eleanor Laing: I was trying to prove this evening that this House can behave exceptionally well, and that is why I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he has got the hint, given that I am on my feet, that he has exceeded the time I hoped he would take, although as I have not applied a formal time limit, I cannot stop him. The hon. Gentleman, however, being an hon. Gentleman, has now resumed his seat.

Geraint Davies: What we are witnessing is the most expensive hoax in history. Some £2 billion is being wasted preparing for a no-deal situation that would have a catastrophic impact on our economy: medicine and food shortages; an economy 10% smaller; £6 billion in tariffs—£2.1 billion on vehicles alone, £1.6 billion on food, £1.1 billion for metals, and so it goes on. The million diabetics who depend on insulin will be put at risk. We have heard about radioisotopes. This cannot be a serious proposition from a serious Government. The idea that we should face this catastrophe unless we accept a botched deal that nobody wants is completely unreasonable.
Let me turn to this botched deal. People voted, quite reasonably, for more money, more jobs and more trade, and for control of migration and their laws. All that sounds quite reasonable. It would be reasonable to vote for it, and I would not knock anyone for doing so. The problem is that the people who did vote for those things are not getting any of them in this deal. It is therefore reasonable for them to reject it, and reasonable and proper for them to have the right to reject it in a public vote.
Some people say, “Oh well, they voted this way, and if we force them to have another vote, they will be terribly angry.” They will be much more angry when they lose their jobs and their livelihoods. Many people I speak to in Swansea say, “I voted leave, but I did not vote to leave my job.” Some 25,000 people in Swansea Bay rely on EU exports. They are critically worried about tariffs and constraints even within the proposed deal, because we will not be part of the single market.
In my 2017 election manifesto—my personal promises to Swansea—I pledged to do my utmost to ensure that we were in the single market in order to avoid those problems, and give the people the right to have the final say on whether they wanted the deal. My share of the vote went up by 50%, to 60%. It was the highest Labour share in history: higher than the one in 1945 and higher than the one in 1997, without there even being a Labour Government. It was a leave area, but people have changed their minds because they have seen the facts, as any rational person would. The irrationality is on the part of the Government who say, “That is what they thought two years ago before they knew the impacts, so we must force-feed them.” People who ordered a steak and got a bit of chewed-up bacon still have to eat it, which is completely ridiculous.
Under the Prime Minister’s deal—I am not talking about the catastrophic gun that the Government are holding to our heads, and I know that the Prime Minister has tried her best to do what she can—we will end up as a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker. There will not be less migration; it will merely be from further afield, and culturally different. There will not be more trade; there will be less trade, because we will not have the collective  leverage of the EU to negotiate with China, with Donald Trump, or with any other large market. When it comes to all the bilateral trade deals, anyone in their right mind, whether from Uruguay or Chile or from South Korea, will say, “Hold on: we are negotiating with a single country rather than a collective. We want a better deal.” We will have worse terms and worse trade, less money and fewer jobs. People do not want that.
Some say, “People will be very angry if we have a people’s vote.” People will be absolutely enraged if they find that they are much poorer, with poorer jobs, because we forced through a botched deal—although obviously it is not the catastrophe that is now being said to be the choice. That is why yesterday I presented a Bill proposing that we revoke article 50 if this place cannot agree on a deal that is then ratified by the public. That would enable us to stay where we are, in the status quo, in the EU, and that is what businesses want.
People may talk about parliamentary democracy, but parliamentary democracy involves a duty of care to our citizens. I have been saying, on behalf of Swansea, “We want a vote, and we want to stay in the single market at least, as well as the customs union.” My constituents have endorsed that. They have not said, “Oh no, this is terrible”, because they expect me to think about these things, day in day out, which I do.
No deal would be a disaster. It should be taken off the table. It is irresponsible, and a waste of £2 billion. We should give the people the final say, and then decide what is best. Ultimately, our children and our children’s children will make a judgment on what we have done. If what we have done sets us off on a road to ruin and isolation and to be inward looking, rather than being part of a collective that espouses the values of rights, democracy and the rule of law, shared prosperity and the creation of a better world—if we choose wrongly—they will never forgive us, so let us give the people the final say.

Mike Hill: It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—who is about to disappear from the Chamber—talk about the perils of the World Trade Organisation. That was fascinating, because we have not really discussed the issue in the Chamber. I have heard, incidentally, that there is a potential not for sanctions, but for vetoes from other countries, such as Russia, in trade agreements under WTO rules. I may be wrong, but that is something that I have heard, and it would be good for it to be confirmed in an intervention.
In the absence of an intervention to confirm that, I shall continue by saying that I have spent the last fortnight on the Fisheries Bill Committee preparing legislation that will see us take back control of our waters and fishing quotas, and hopefully help regenerate coastal towns such as Hartlepool.
Fishermen and fisherwomen were among the most vociferous pro-Brexit voters. They saw it as an opportunity to tip the balance back in our favour and limit access to our seas by non-UK trawlers. That is the point: it is all about rebalancing—escaping the shackles of the common fisheries policy, but not destroying our trade links with the EU. A hard Brexit threatens that for our fishing industry, and will potentially lead to untold damage to businesses up and down the UK.
We should have had a meaningful vote last week so that we could get on with the job of thrashing out an alternative—an alternative that would protect jobs, businesses, the environment and the flow of goods across our borders after we leave the EU. We have a mere 100 days before we leave the EU; the clock is ticking fast, yet the Government are dithering and withering and wasting precious time. As has been said, kicking the can down the road resolves nothing. Setting aside £2 billion to prepare for a no-deal is a tremendous waste of money—money that could help prevent my council from raiding its reserves to make ends meet; money that could be put back into public health budgets in my constituency which have been severely cut and redirected to the leafy suburbs of the south; money that could be put back into education and save our struggling schools in Hartlepool; and money that could be better used to end the blight of poverty and homelessness. In Hartlepool, the Trussell Trust food bank has handed out more than 27,000 meals in the last 11 months.
Brexit is a brave step into the unknown, but my constituents voted to take that step in the referendum. They did so in the expectation that things would be better and the prospects more prosperous for our country. They did not expect to be worse off, to be cut off and to lose jobs and businesses. That is why we need urgently to get beyond the meaningful vote. Let Parliament take back control and get us out of this mess.

Hugh Gaffney: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) on securing this important debate.
We find ourselves in an historic situation as a country and as a democracy. Our country faces the real possibility of leaving the European Union in March 2019 without a deal having been reached in the negotiations. The consequences of such a scenario for trade, jobs, living standards, workers’ rights and the integrity of our country would be both profound and devastating, and we have a Government who are riding roughshod over our democracy by the way they are treating this Parliament. This Government were the first to be found in contempt of Parliament in modern times, and they continue to refuse to put their Brexit deal to a vote of this House. Taxpayers’ money is being wasted by this House and this Prime Minister by her touring Europe.
The Prime Minister insists that her deal is the best on the table for Britain, yet she continues to refuse to bring it to this House for a vote. That does not suggest to me that the Prime Minister has strong confidence in the contents of the deal. If she really believed that this is the best deal, she would be prepared to make the case for it in a meaningful debate and vote in this House.
I can remember the times when the Prime Minister repeatedly told the country that no deal was better than a bad deal. Now she tells the country that a bad deal is better than no deal—and this is indeed a bad deal. It fails to protect jobs and living standards. It offers no guarantees that workers’ rights, environmental standards and consumer protections will not be put at risk. It threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom, due to   the backstop that is meant to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The nature of that backstop, and the inability of the UK to leave it unilaterally, would turn our country into Hotel California. We could check out any time we liked, but we could never leave.
The Prime Minister has brought about some rare unity in the House. She has united Members from across the party divide against her deal. When it finally comes to the House for a vote, I am confident that it will be rejected. What worries me is that the Government continue to rule out the prospect of a no-deal Brexit that the Government’s own analysis has shown would be devastating for the economy. They should provide certainty for businesses, workers and communities by taking the option of no deal firmly off the table.
My constituents want an end to the political games that are being played in this House. They do not want the Prime Minister’s botched deal, which fails to protect jobs, living standards and workers’ rights. They do not want the European Research Group’s hard Brexit, which would devastate our economy, and they do not want the political opportunism of the Scottish National party, which seeks to use Brexit as its latest grievance to push for a second independence referendum. They want a Government who can negotiate a Brexit deal that unites the country and delivers a fairer Britain.

Alex Chalk: The hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench spokesman has said that it is highly unlikely that the Government will get meaningful changes to their deal. Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that the European Union, which has quite a lot of other things to think about, is going to contemplate any sort of radical, root-and-branch completely different deal that his party might come up with before the end of March?

Hugh Gaffney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I was just about to go on to talk about a Labour Government.
A Labour Government will negotiate a strong single market deal and permanent customs union with the EU to protect our trade, jobs and living standards. A Labour Government will guarantee workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer standards. A Labour Government will guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in this country, who contribute so much to our public services and society. We will address the underlying causes of Brexit by investing in our communities, tackling low pay, ending precarious employment and ensuring that our public services are run for people, not for profit.
I will finish up now, as it would be unfair to the next speaker to carry on. I reiterate the call that I put to the Prime Minister in the House last week: recognise that you have failed to deliver a Brexit deal that delivers for working people; recognise that you no longer command the confidence of the country; and give the people the opportunity to elect a Labour Government by calling a general election, so that we can get to work for the many people looking on at this Tory pantomime and this shambles of a Government.

Paul Williams: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), and I thank him for his courtesy.
This is not a Noel Edmonds game show. The Government are playing politics with Brexit. They are playing on people’s fears, and they have created a hoax that will divert huge resources away from frontline services this winter. The Chancellor has said that at least £4.2 billion has been set aside for no-deal planning since 2016. That is a grotesque waste of taxpayers’ money on something that will not happen, that does not need to happen and that Parliament must not allow to happen. How much extra help would that £4.2 billion buy for the NHS? How many extra police and how much extra help for our schools would it buy? And that £4.2 billion is only the Government spend. The increased costs now for our businesses do not bear thinking about.
Why am I so confident that a no-deal Brexit does not need to happen? When the Government were negotiating with the EU27, they took a negotiating position about no deal, using the slogan “no deal is better than a bad deal”. That was the negotiating position taken by the Government to try to negotiate the best possible deal with the EU, but the negotiations concluded. The Prime Minister and the EU signed off on an agreement. This is the final deal, according to the Prime Minister. She said as much when she opened the debate that was concluded prematurely.
Given that an agreement has been signed off, pending the approval of the UK Parliament and the European Parliament, why is no deal still being touted as an option? It is there for one reason only: the Prime Minister wants to bully Members across the House into voting for her deal. It is a deal that businesses tell me will lead the UK into a blind Brexit, when nothing about our future has been nailed down. It is a deal that does not give us access to the European Medicines Agency, which gives patients access to cancer drugs six months earlier. The Minister shakes his head, but the deal says that there is an aspiration to join the European Medicines Agency; it does not nail anything down. It is a deal that leaves us following EU rules without having any say in them. It is a national humiliation. We will not be bullied, and we do not want to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal.
The Prime Minister could easily rule out no deal herself. If the House was allowed to vote on the matter, no deal could easily be ruled out. There was even an amendment to the motion that was pulled that would have ruled out a no-deal Brexit. The Government are wasting so much money on something reckless that could be stopped now. And now Parliament is going into recess—18 days off at time of national crisis, when we could be sorting this out.
Why are the Government not allowing Parliament to vote on this now? It is simply because they are trying to escalate the crisis. What responsible Government allow a crisis to develop just to bully MPs? What responsible Government spend millions on fridges for political reasons? What responsible Government, for political reasons, allow businesses to escalate their planning for no deal, which is likely to include making people redundant? Whether people voted to leave or to remain back in 2016, nobody voted for this. A no-deal Brexit was not on the ballot paper and it was not in the prospectus.
I believe that there is only one sensible way out of this crisis: Parliament must be allowed immediately to rule out a no-deal Brexit, without going into recess. Parliament must be allowed, the day after new year’s day—when  everyone else goes back to work—to vote on the deal. When Parliament votes against the Prime Minister’s bad deal, as it will, we must revoke the article 50 notice and give the people the final say. This would be the first chance the public have had to vote on EU exit while being in possession of all the facts needed to make the decision. We need a people’s vote with an option to stay in the EU.
I represent Stockton South in the north-east of England, an area with significant inequalities, in need of investment and massively dependent on our relationship with the EU: 57% of the north-east’s trade is with the EU. Our area stands to lose the most from a no-deal Brexit—16% less growth, according to the reports that the Government did not want us to see. North-east businesses are pleading with MPs to rule out a no-deal Brexit. The North East England chamber of commerce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, wants us to stay in the single market and in the customs union to protect jobs. A no-deal Brexit is an existential threat to the NHS. The Government should stop playing politics with Brexit, immediately rule out no deal and give us a meaningful vote without delay.

Keir Starmer: This has largely been a good debate, with clear and powerful points being made on both sides of the House on which we all need to reflect.
Despite the Minister’s valiant attempts, he was not convincing in his defence of the preparations for no deal. No deal is not viable and not credible, and if that is true, it will not serve the Government’s intended purpose in bringing this to a binary choice, and we should not be wasting money on it. No deal should be taken off the table, and then we could have a sensible discussion about what happens next.
A lot was said by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) about the national interest. I will not sink to misrepresenting his views, even though he sank to misrepresenting mine.

Charles Walker: I am really fascinated to know what deal the right hon. and learned Gentleman would accept from the Prime Minister.

Keir Starmer: I have said for months on end that—

Charles Walker: What deal?

Keir Starmer: If the hon. Gentleman listened, he might actually understand what I have been saying for month after month and not sink to mispresenting my view. I have argued for a permanent customs union and a single market deal. I have bothered to go to Brussels over two years to discuss whether that is viable, and I would not have proposed it if I did not think it viable. That is something I have done over and above what he has done.

Charles Walker: That is not Great Britain but little Britain.

Keir Starmer: I really think the hon. Gentleman should not embarrass himself any further.
What is not in the national interest are the red lines that the Prime Minister agreed not with her Cabinet, and not even with this House, but with a group of three or four people in the autumn of 2016. We have all had to live with those red lines ever since, and we have had no say. That was not in the national interest.
It was not in the national interest to push Parliament away at the beginning of the process, perhaps recognising that, in the end, we would have to reach consensus. It was not sensible to push Parliament away after the snap general election of 2017, when it was obvious that what is happening now would happen. It was not in the national interest never to reach across to the Opposition. It was not in the national interest to take as long as until June 2018 to come up with the Chequers proposal.
Every time I had debates and discussions with people in the EU27 before June, they said, “What is your Government trying to achieve. We don’t even know that.” That was not in the national interest, and it was not in the national interest to propose a Chequers deal that, hopelessly, was not accepted even by Conservative Members and that was immediately rejected by the EU. That is the central concern.
The reason why we are talking about the backstop and an additional transition is that the future relationship is so hopelessly underdeveloped. Nobody here and nobody in Europe thinks for a moment that the future relationship will be ready for January 2021. It is another of those myths that we have had for two years. It is not going to happen, which is why there is great anxiety about the backstop.
A backstop in which England, Wales and Scotland are out of the single market will have repercussions, and having a future relationship that is so blind that we do not know whether it might be economically close or distant is not something that any responsible Opposition could vote for.
It was not in the national interest to resist a meaningful vote. We are now all enjoying the fact that we will have a meaningful vote in January, but we would not have had it if Opposition Members, and some Conservative Members, had not voted for it. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Broxbourne did. I think he probably voted against it, voting not to have a say, not to have this debate and not to have the chance to have a say—just wave it through.

Charles Walker: It is because of my Committee that Parliament has the meaningful vote.

Keir Starmer: I asked whether the hon. Gentleman voted for it.

Charles Walker: You are being ridiculous.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am determined to prove this evening that the House can be well behaved.

Keir Starmer: It was not in the national interest to resist the meaningful vote. It was not in the national interest to resist any disclosure of impact assessments, which had to be forced. It was not in the national  interest not to disclose legal advice that was relevant but not, in truth, confidential. And it was not in the national interest to pull the vote and prevent what needs to happen next.
I have been consistent in arguing for my proposition. We have tabled amendments before the House time and again, and they have been voted down time and again through blind loyalty. Instead of a Prime Minister and a Government who are prepared to work across the House for true consensus, what is happening now among Government Members was utterly predictable at 10 o’clock, when the result of that snap election came in. At that moment, the Prime Minister should have realised and thought about the long-term prospect of getting a deal through, and that meant working in a consensual way, taking on board the proper points that have been made by Opposition Members. That is what acting in the national interest is all about.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the Cabinet’s decision to accelerate preparations for a no-deal outcome to Brexit, following the Prime Minister’s failure to allow this House promptly to express its view on the Government’s deal, in the light of the significant public expenditure involved.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last night, a man sleeping rough on Parliament’s doorstep died. This is the second time that that has happened. I know individual MPs and staff do what they can to help people, but I wonder whether you are aware of any strategy that Parliament might be seeking to put in place to support people who are homeless. I also wonder whether there has been any indication from Ministers that they will be making a statement on this tragedy and on their failure to address the crisis of homelessness that we see every day in our communities up and down the country.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for bringing to the attention of the House the tragedy of the loss of life of someone who has been homeless and sleeping rough here. I am sure the whole House will join me in saying how sorry we are that something like that has happened. She has asked me whether I am aware of whether Ministers are likely to come forward with plans to deal with homelessness. I understand that the Secretary of State might well be coming forward with such plans, but I have no formal indication of when that might be or in what form. The hon. Lady has made some very important points, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard them and that the Ministers with responsibility will come to know very quickly about what she has drawn to the attention of the House—if by no other means, I will make sure that they know about it. I have every confidence that Ministers will take into consideration what she has said this evening in making future plans.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

DISABILITY SUPPORT

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) to move the motion, it might be helpful for the House if I explain that as the debate under Standing Order No. 24 began at precisely 4.24 pm, the Backbench business may continue until 9.36 pm. I understand that the second debate on the Order Paper under Backbench Business—I am helpfully getting assent from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee on this, for which I thank him—will not be moved today.

Debbie Abrahams: I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to commission an independent assessment of the cumulative impact of changes to the social security system on sick and disabled people and their families and carers.
It has been a long day for everybody, but I appreciate the fact that we are able to hold this debate, as it is so important to the millions of disabled people, many of whom will be watching today. We applied to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate back in June, and I am grateful to the Committee’s members for supporting this debate, but in six months a lot has marched on.
Let me refresh everybody’s memories. Back in 2013, nearly 105,000 people signed a petition launched by the War On Welfare campaign—WOW, for short—that called on the Government to carry out a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of Government cuts on disabled people. Back in February 2014, we held that debate, and Members from all parties raised the alarm about the cumulative effects of austerity on disabled people. Disappointingly, the Government’s response at the time was to deny that the public spending cuts—not only in social security but across other Government Departments—were having such a detrimental impact on disabled people. They also said that cumulative impact assessment methodology was very difficult. At that time, Scope and Demos estimated that the cumulative effects of the changes in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 alone amounted to £28 billion-worth of cuts for 3.7 million people.
It is abundantly clear from the numerous inquiries, reports and analyses, as well as from the personal testimonies of disabled people themselves, that austerity is doing immense harm to disabled people and their families and carers. I shall expand on that in a moment, but first I wish to clarify exactly what a cumulative impact assessment—or a CIA; it is a mouthful to keep saying that every time—is. A CIA involves various methods and processes to assess the overall effect of a set of changes—for example, Government policies such as tax or welfare reforms—on a particular population, which in this case is disabled people. The assessment can not only quantify the impacts—for example, by looking at the net changes in income—but use qualitative methods to understand how the policy changes affect disabled people or other groups. As whole, impact assessments are decision-making tools. They should inform policy development based on the evidence and  findings that the assessments present. They can also be used retrospectively. The power of CIAs is that they consider a number of policies together to see how they affect each other.
I believe passionately in evidence-based policy. Too often, it is the other way around: policy-based evidence—we select the evidence that suits the policies that we want. CIAs can help to avoid that. For me, they are an essential component of open and transparent policy making. If a politician says, for example, that they want to tackle burning injustices in society, CIAs will say whether or not a policy programme can achieve that. They are therefore also a way to hold politicians to account.

Jim Cunningham: We should bear it in mind that the Government, at least at the two most recent general elections, wanted to save about £12 billion from the welfare budget, so all these systems are geared towards that end. That is why we have major problems with universal credit. For people with disabilities, there are issues with the independent living allowance, which really unsettled a lot of families, to say the least. More importantly, every so often, a person with disabilities is subject to a review, which causes great anxiety, and in some instances leads to mental stress and strain. It is not a very fair system, and the private sector should not be involved because at the end of the day it is very much about saving money.

Debbie Abrahams: Yes, and I shall come to exactly some of the points my hon. Friend raised. He managed to get quite a bit into that intervention.
What CIAs have been done so far? Back in March this year, the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its report on the cumulative impact of tax and welfare reforms. The report looked at the effect, since 2010, of tax, welfare, social security and public spending on people with protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 2010. It included assessments of the impact on disabled people. The EHRC looked at the measures introduced in the both the 2012 Act and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, including the move to personal independence payments from disability living allowance; the cuts in support to the employment and support allowance work-related activity group; the introduction of universal credit, which involved the removal of the severe and enhanced disability premiums; the freeze in the uprating of social security support payments; and more. The EHRC analysis found that, by 2021, households with at least one disabled adult and a disabled child will lose more than £6,500 a year—that is 13% of their income. Households with six or more disabilities lose almost £3,150 a year, and disabled lone parents, predominantly women, with at least one disabled child lose almost £10,000 of their net income.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is outlining analysis of the loss of income experienced by disabled people, but I know that she will also want to acknowledge the work of the Social Metrics Commission led by Baroness Stroud from the other place, which has also identified the additional costs that are experienced by disabled people and which has properly, or more accurately therefore, portrayed the poverty that they experience compared with some of the measures  that we have been able to use previously. Does she agree that a cumulative assessment is about drawing together many different ways of measuring the impact of cuts, changes and access to public services and the additional costs that disabled people and their families experience?

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely essential point. I will come on in a moment to the poverty that disabled people are experiencing by virtue of the additional costs that they face. She is right that a whole range of different methods can be used and we need to look at all of them to ensure that we can fully understand the impacts on disabled people.

Ruth George: My hon. Friend is setting out an excellent case for what cumulative impact assessments can achieve. Does she agree with me on the holistic impact of other cuts, particularly on our health services? I am seeing GPs in my constituency who are refusing to write fit notes or assessments for medical evidence for people. We are seeing cuts in voluntary services, community transport, and befriending services, leaving people with disabilities feeling utterly isolated, alone and bereft.

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. Again, my hon. Friend makes an essential point. The UN Committee investigating breaches in the UN convention on the rights of disabled people found those issues as well.
That was the EHRC’s cumulative impact assessment back in March. Although October’s Budget made some changes to universal credit, it restored, as analysis of the Office for Budget Responsibility showed, just half of what was cut in 2015, and only marginally helped those disabled people who are able to work. For those too ill to work, analyses by Policy in Practice shows that they will be financially worse off compared with when they were on legacy benefits. Importantly, today’s Work and Pensions Committee report confirmed the issues that many of us have already raised about the proposed managed migration of disabled people onto universal credit and said that it needs to be stopped. Furthermore, we need to ensure that the so-called natural migration that results when there is a change of circumstances needs to be properly looked at.
Apart from the changes in universal credit, there were absolutely no other measures for disabled people in the Budget. In fact, the OBR report showed that disabled people were set to lose more social security support by 2022. For example, personal independence payment spending is to be £1 billion less in 2022 compared with March this year.
I am sure that the Government will say that they are helping disabled people to improve their living standards by getting them into work. However, just over 51% of 4 million disabled people of working age are in employment compared with 81% of non-disabled people—a disability employment gap of just over 30%, a figure that has barely narrowed since 2015 when the Conservative party manifesto pledged to halve that gap. As we also know, there are more than 8 million households with at least one person in work that are living in poverty. Work is not, as is frequently said by Government Members, a route out of poverty.
Last year, the Government set more modest ambitions with a new target to get 1 million more disabled people into work, but even this needs a radical rethink. There are many reasons why the disability employment gap has hardly reduced in the last three years, including the lack of information and advice for employers, but we must remember that discrimination of disabled workers is still quite prevalent. In a recent survey, 15% of disabled people revealed that they had been discriminated against when applying for a job, and one in five while they were in work. Information is not enough to address this; it needs leadership and cultural change.

Kate Green: Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that a cumulative impact assessment would also identify the lack of access to legal aid when people may need to take forward discrimination cases in employment?

Debbie Abrahams: Absolutely. I was going to mention employment tribunals, which I think have reduced by 80% since the cuts to legal aid. A cumulative impact assessment would enable us to see the impacts there.
With the best will in the world, the Disability Confident scheme just does not cut it. There needs to be a commitment to expand and properly resource access to work. Supporting under 34,000 disabled people year at and into work is a drop in the ocean when there are over 2 million unemployed disabled people who want to work. But as we know, not all disabled people are able to work. The consequence of the inadequate support made available through our social security system is that 4.3 million sick and disabled people are living in poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned, disabled people are twice as likely to live in persistent poverty as non-disabled people; 80% of disability-related poverty is because of the additional costs that disabled people face by virtue of their disability, and these have been estimated at £570 a month on average.
The cuts to social security mean that more and more disabled people are becoming isolated in their own home as their mobility vehicles or personal support are taken from them. Many are struggling to pay their rent or mortgage. Their health conditions have deteriorated and other conditions have developed, including mental health conditions, as they face the relentless stress and anxiety resulting from a social security system that is hostile, unsupportive and even dehumanising.
The sanctions regime that has affected over 1 million disabled people since 2010, the work capability assessment and personal independence payment assessment processes are all part of this. Quite frankly, it is grotesque that people with progressive conditions such as motor neurone disease have, until last month, been habitually forced through the personal independence payment assessment process. I understand that there are still issues with that, although it was meant to have stopped last month. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to that point.
There is also overwhelming evidence of the inaccuracies—some have called them lies—in these assessment reports. Why have the Government not been able to act on this? With over 70% of assessment appeals successful, whatever contract management processes the Government have in place, they are clearly not fit  for purpose. All these Government social security changes will have a huge toll on the health, wellbeing and even the longevity of disabled people.
A peer reviewed study by my former colleague Ben Barr and his colleagues showed the detrimental mental health effects of the work capability assessment, including it being independently associated with an increase in suicides. On top of this, the Government’s own data reveal that the death rates for people on incapacity benefit and employment support allowance are 4.3 times higher than in the general population, people in the ESA support group are 6.3 times more likely to die than the general population and those in the work-related activity group are twice as likely to die as the general population. I reported these figures back in 2015. People on IB and ESA are poorly; they are not feckless as too many people have tried to suggest. But again, the Government did not listen and went on to push disabled people in the support group and originally assessed as not fit for work through another work capability assessment process into the WRAG, and then cut their support by £1,500 a year in 2016.

Ruth George: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Debbie Abrahams: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I am conscious that I need to make progress.
Last month’s British Medical Journal report from King’s College and other research centres showed the impact of social care cuts on additional deaths of disabled adults and older people. They estimate that for every £10 per head cut in social care, there are five additional deaths. They also estimate 150,000 additional deaths by 2020, on 2014 trends. I will just let that sink in—150,000 additional deaths.
National and international organisations have called on the Government to undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of cuts on disabled people. They include the Government’s own Social Security Advisory Committee, the House of Lords Select Committee on the 2010 Equality Act and Disability, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, last month, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.
However, I would just like to refresh everyone’s memory on last year’s findings from the UN committee investigating breaches since 2010 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. These are breaches by this Government. It said that the Government were responsible for “grave” and “systemic violations” of the rights of disabled people, and that these failures amounted to a “human catastrophe”. Although it highlighted the poverty and shocking impact of cuts on disabled people’s ability to live adequately and independently, it went beyond social protection and social care issues, listing 60 recommendations right across all the articles of the convention and all Government Departments, from accessible physical environments, to education and access to justice. A key recommendation was that the UNCRPD should be enshrined in UK law.
The UN committee also expressed concerns regarding how the terms under which the UK leaves the European Union could affect disabled people. I noted with alarm a leaked DWP report in The Times last week that also suggests this. Since the 1990s, the UK has trailed behind Europe on the rights of disabled people. The Government’s  refusal earlier this year to protect the rights of disabled people by incorporating the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law as we leave the EU is deeply disappointing.
My other concern is how disabled people, who have been very poorly served by this Government, will do with an even weaker economy. In all the exit scenarios from credible analysts, the economy shrinks both in the short and the long term compared with the situation in our current relationship with the EU. Disabled people have been at the back of the queue in public spending terms since 2010. What will happen to them with an even smaller spending pot? Although a Labour Government would make different political choices to tackle poverty and inequality, with lower levels of economic growth, how quickly we can do this will be a real issue if we are to stick to the fiscal rules we set out in last year’s general election.
In recent days, in preparation for this debate, I have been contacted by hundreds of sick and disabled people with their stories of how these cuts have affected them. I would like to share a few of those stories. L, who is a single mum in Oldham, contacted my office recently after her UC was suddenly stopped. She was told that it was because her son, who has severe learning disabilities and who L is the carer for, had reached his 19th birthday. This “change in circumstances” meant that her son had to make his own claim. Unfortunately, no one had told L this. Instead, they just stopped her support payments. She was lucky in that her family helped her out for the five weeks until she had her payment reinstated, but she told me:
“At times I just want to end it all...it’s just so hard and I get no support or respite.”
Another of my constituents, John, was refusing to have the life-saving surgery he needs for a brain tumour because he was worried he would be sanctioned. He had been sanctioned for three months earlier in the year because he did not attend a work capability assessment, although he had explained it was because of his treatment for his tumour.
Beth told me:
“I was contributing £82.50 per month for my care but in 2017 I was informed that my contribution needed to increase and I would have to pay £81 per week. Nothing in my financial circumstances such as my PIP award had changed so I queried the increase and was told that it was correct. Now I have no money for my medication or the aids I need...the impact on me has been increased pain, isolation and anxiety.”
Beth has spina bifida, fibromyalgia and anxiety disorder.
Dawn moved from one local authority to another and fell foul of the change in circumstances rule. She was put on UC and lost her disability premium of £64 a week. Lee, who has severe mental health problems, was subject to seven assessments—seven—in six years. Jayne lost her mobility car after a PIP assessment because her degenerative condition was not considered bad enough, and now she has to rely on her friends and family for help. This is happening up and down the country. The despair in the messages is palpable, and I urge everyone to read the WOW campaign’s voices e-book, which collates these experiences and is so moving.
We are the fifth richest country in the world. How this Government have treated our disabled people shames us all. We must never forget that nine out of 10 disabilities are acquired. Any one of us could have an accident or  contract an illness. Like the NHS, our social security system should be there for all of us in our time of need. People should not be vilified by a system that is meant to be there to support them.
In addition to understanding the cumulative impact of Government policy, which the motion calls for, we need to radically transform our social security system and develop a new social contract with the British people. I know that my hon. Friends on the shadow Front Bench have been working on this. Since 2010, we have seen social security spending cuts of nearly £40 billion, with another £12 billion planned by 2022. Although the Labour manifesto last year and our disability manifesto, which I was proud to write, were a start, we need to do much more—I know that that is recognised—particularly regarding the financial inadequacy in the social security system. We cannot expect people who are living in such hardship and poverty to wait a few years for a real living wage to kick in. What about the disabled people who cannot work?
The 1942 Beveridge report was the basis for a new welfare state, set up after the second world war, when the debt to GDP ratio was over 250%. Under Beveridge, we established the NHS in 1948 and expanded social security and our education system. It was heralded as a revolutionary system that would provide income security for its citizens as part of a comprehensive policy of social progress. But since then, society has changed. The pressures from globalisation, automation and an ageing society mean that we need to develop a new, sustainable social security system that we can be proud of.
We need a new Beveridge report for the 21st century, defining a new social contract with the British people; addressing the poverty, inequalities and indignity that millions of people—disabled and non-disabled, young and old, men and women—are enduring; and bringing hope to a new generation as it did 76 years ago. The poverty and inequalities that disabled people are facing are unacceptable, but they are not inevitable.

Bill Grant: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). I commend her on her passionate speech.
In recent months, much has been said of the ongoing changes to the social security system. Indeed, some Opposition Members continually focus on negative experiences, to the exclusion of the positive aspects of change. I cannot agree with that often gloomy assessment, however well intended it is. I have spoken to those in my constituency who deal with the delivery of a changing welfare system at the jobcentre every working day, and who also dealt with the previous clumsy, fragmented social security system. I was pleased to note that staff are enthusiastic about the changes and advised me that the Government have listened to them on this long journey and continue to listen when areas of improvement are identified.
With the wholesale replacement of an entire welfare system that was tired and not fit for purpose, such gradual improvements are not surprising—indeed, they are an indication that the Government continue to  listen to feedback from those best placed to offer it. The work coaches dealing with cases each and every day now have greater flexibility to help vulnerable individuals, assisting each in a different way, tailored to their particular circumstances. Coaches can focus on the most pertinent cases, while claimants who demonstrate their familiarity with the system through their daily work diary can be left, for the most part, to navigate the system by themselves, although assistance must always be available to them if required.

Ruth George: The hon. Gentleman is making some points about the universal credit system, but that system is not accessible by 50% of disabled people. They are unable to access it online or through their work journal. In my area, home visits are not being allowed either. What does the hon. Gentleman say to those people who cannot access such a system?

Bill Grant: It is difficult to say something positive about those cases, but I can relate that to my own experience—

Ruth George: These are people with disabilities.

Bill Grant: I can only relate that to my own experience. We have outreach workers who go and assist these individuals, and that assistance must be given when requested. I am saddened if that is the case in the hon. Lady’s area, but I am proud of the staff in Ayr and other local jobcentres.
Like many Members, I have had concerns that the implementation of such a comprehensive system may lead to errors, human or indeed systemic, in the support given in particular to vulnerable and disabled claimants. Indeed, I have referred to these concerns previously in this very Chamber. However, I have been reassured by recent measures, particularly those announced in the Budget, to ensure support during that transition. The additional £1 billion over five years to support the transition is especially welcome, but I accept that more would be welcome in that regard.
I have likewise been concerned by allegations of failings in the health assessments required under the personal independence payment scheme. However, on inspection of and after a closer look at the figures, this pessimism is not supported. I understand that only 4%—[Interruption.] There is a degree of pessimism. Of initial decisions, only 4% are overturned at appeal. Of course, we have all dealt with specific cases where errors have indeed been made—and, I hope, rectified—but the overall figures are encouraging. I repeat that the overall figures are encouraging. We need to monitor what we are doing to understand what we are doing. Almost 90% are satisfied with the PIP claim process.
Something that is often overlooked, sadly in my view, is the flexibility for those with disabilities returning to work that is encouraged by the revised welfare system. Where previously there were rigid rules—very rigid rules—there is now the flexibility to allow a phased reduction in benefits while a person builds up their hours and their confidence in a new role. This can be a challenging yet rewarding event for the individual. This is a sensible element of the new system in helping people back into work, where appropriate, and one I very much support.
The Disability Confident scheme, which has been with us for a number of years, also assists greatly with this process. I commend employers throughout the length and breadth of the country for embracing this excellent system. At this juncture, I note that disability benefits are not covered by the benefits cap, and rightly so.

Lisa Cameron: On the Disability Confident scheme, will the hon. Gentleman recommend that MPs should be joining it and trying to ensure that they engage with employment practices that support people with disabilities to come and work in the House of Commons? The Speaker’s internship scheme, which has been extended to include placements for people with disabilities, is an excellent scheme. Will he also suggest that we should be looking at people with disabilities not just as employees, but as employers, and doing all we can to support their progress?

Bill Grant: I wholly agree with the hon. Lady. Yes, we should be trailblazers and setting the example by giving employment to those who are seeking employment and want to contribute to society, and broadening that as best we can. We should also be encouraging local employers, as I am sure the hon. Lady does, to take that on board, and to build a bridge between the person who really is employable and wants to work and the opportunity for the employer that, perhaps with a minor adjustment to the workplace, can accommodate a disabled person. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
I am sure hon. Members will be encouraged to note that in the United Kingdom—this proud nation of ours—spending on disability and health conditions is the second highest in the G7.
Universal credit is a comprehensive system, bringing about the much-needed modernisation of a dated and discredited welfare system. I have not found it to represent the draconian approach that some have suggested—their experiences of it are clearly different from mine—and I am encouraged by the much greater flexibility it offers in helping people return, where appropriate, to the dignity and self-esteem that employment must surely bring.
I am optimistic about the future of universal credit, should Ministers continue, as they have thus far, to listen and respond to concerns or suggestions from Members of this House, jobcentre staff and, most importantly, those who themselves rely on the support afforded by the welfare system in the United Kingdom.

Helen Goodman: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and thanking the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to hold this important debate.
I was taken aback by the roseate picture that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) gave us. It does not square with my experience in my constituency, and I want to outline why. The problem of cuts to disability benefit has affected a lot of my constituents very badly indeed. That is largely because, although Durham is no longer a mining area, it has a legacy of heavy industry. Healthy life expectancy across the country as a whole may be 69 years; in County Durham it is 59.  That means that many people under pension age are in need of support from the social security system and need disability benefits.
One problem results from the interactions with other parts of the benefit system. Those are serious and complex. Obviously, the bedroom tax—which we debated at length in 2014—has adversely affected those people who needed a spare room for a carer in their family, which they are now financially penalised for using. Another group of people who are badly affected are the WASPI women. I had a fantastic meeting with 300 WASPI women in my constituency. Some people who turned up were hale and hearty, but a considerable number were seriously ill and had a disability. Some of them were working at the age of 15; their bodies are now worn out. The Minister must know that that is an issue because she has noted the significant increase in the number of women over 55 who have had to go on to ESA.
One woman who recently came to see me had to stop work because she had cancer and her doctor said she could no longer do a part-time job. Because her job had been part time, she was not entitled to contributory ESA. Because she has an occupational pension of £60 a week, she is not entitled to any other money from the social security system.
A family came to see me. The mother was disqualified from benefit when she moved from DLA to PIP. At the stroke of a pen she lost that benefit, her son lost carer’s allowance and they lost housing benefit. They were losing £8,000 a year. Their income was halved by the change in assessment.
Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, we had the problem of the Motability cuts. Everybody wants to help and support people who go out to work when they have a disability. The cuts to Motability have been one of the most destructive, futile and pointless cuts one could possibly dream up. A young woman came to see me. She had dwarfism. She had succeeded in getting a university degree and holding down a job. When her Motability was taken from her, of course her whole life was thrown into chaos. Then we had the benefit freezes, which adversely affect this group of people. We are now seeing people with disabilities and chronic illnesses being moved on to universal credit, gradually at first but there will be more in future. That means there is another group of people who will be suffering from the delays to benefit payments and pushed into debt. When Ministers talk about being fiscally responsible, having a welfare cut and the fantastic savings they have got out of the social security budget, the truth is that those savings have been achieved on the backs of people like my constituents with severe disabilities and health problems.
I want to talk in particular about the move from DLA to PIP and ESA. I cannot think of a worse-named benefit than PIP: it’s not really personal, it doesn’t give people independence and there isn’t much of a payment if they do manage to get it. There is massive confusion among the public, some of whom thought they were entitled to DLA for life. Some people who received higher-level DLA now have zero points and receive no PIP whatever. My constituency caseworker, who has dealt with hundreds of cases over the past couple of years, has an 82% success rate on appeals—82% of decisions are being overturned.

Stephen Kinnock: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that in Wales 75% of PIP and 74% of ESA decisions were overturned on appeal in 2017? Does that not lead to the conclusion that this is an utterly dysfunctional and shambolic system, which is a huge waste of resources and taxpayers’ money? It is not only callous and cruel—it is not value for money.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend expresses it very well. I did not know the statistics relating to Wales. Wales and Durham are obviously having a very similar experience, which is perhaps not surprising as Wales is another area where people are coping with a heavy industry legacy.

Geraint Davies: In Swansea, some of the most vulnerable people are going through the most dreadful anguish and anxiety. They are chronically ill, yet they think they will not end up with benefits. Is that not part of a wider strategy to squeeze the poorest and most vulnerable to pay for the bankers’ greed, which led to the 2008 financial crisis?

Helen Goodman: It is extraordinary that the Government have been able to find the money to cut inheritance tax for the richest, but they cannot find money for people with disabilities and mental health problems.
As my hon. Friends have said, the stress and distress caused, particularly to people with mental health problems, are a serious problem. People are put into a situation of tension because they do not know when or whether they are going to be reassessed. I have constituents who are concerned for their family members’ wellbeing, because they get so anxious and cannot face the work capability assessments.
Let me now turn to the problem of ESA. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock talked about how we need to encourage and support people back into work. That is indeed true, but the fact is that, from the point of view of an employer, employing people with disabilities means higher employee liability insurance, it very often means adjustments at work and there is simply no incentive for people—[Interruption.] The Minister is saying, “Rubbish” from a sedentary position. Would he like to come to the Dispatch Box and tell me why that is rubbish?

Justin Tomlinson: Both as a Member of Parliament in my constituency office and as somebody who ran a business for 10 years, I employed disabled people and I benefited. It takes good employers to have a wide-ranging workforce. If you get it right it is a win-win for everybody. I do not recognise the situation the hon. Lady sets out.

Helen Goodman: I am glad the Minister did as he did, but we do also hear from people who cannot get jobs because of their disabilities and from employers who say it is too expensive to make the adjustments.

Luke Graham: On the point about it being too expensive, does the hon. Lady recognise the support to work schemes that the Government have introduced and which now can reach  up to £57,000 per employee, which can help to negate some of those costs and support disabled people in work?

Helen Goodman: If those schemes were so good, the proportion of people with disabilities in work would have gone up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who opened the debate, pointed out, it has not increased one jot in the last eight years.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is right. She will recall that the gap between the employment rate for disabled people and the overall average was falling steadily until 2010, and she will know that it has flatlined ever since. Does she share my disappointment that the Government no longer have a target for reducing the disability employment gap—the target initially set by David Cameron but since abandoned, unfortunately?

Helen Goodman: My right hon. Friend, who had a proud record as a Minister tackling these issues in the previous Labour Government, points out the twists and turns of policy. It is patently ridiculous for Ministers, following the UN report, to be complacent in this area. There is no room for complacency.
I wish to illustrate the problem of ESA with some stories of constituents of mine. Mrs M, 63, had to stop working as a carer because of ill health. She was signed off by her GP. She has Paget’s disease and a tumour on her leg. She sees an oncologist. She needs a new hip. She is seeing a surgeon because she needs a new knee. She has heart arrhythmia on the left side and sees a cardiologist. She was refused ESA at assessment and had to apply for JSA, and she was advised to apply for jobs as a roofer and bouncer or to consider retraining as a social worker. Obviously, we supported her appeal, and ESA was awarded. It is patently ridiculous that people have to go through this sort of thing.
Mr C, 60, had previously been awarded DLA following a series of strokes. He was transferred to PIP in January 2018 and awarded a high rate for both care and mobility. He put in an ESA assessment request in September 2018, but he got confused because all his medical information had been sent to DWP for the PIP assessment, and he was then expected to pay again for the medical evidence for the ESA application. Why can the Department not sort out its administration, instead of putting these financial burdens on to our vulnerable constituents?
Mr I, 64, was previously awarded PIP and was reassessed in 2018. The award was unchanged—eight points for mobility because he cannot walk 50 metres unaided—but his ESA assessment in October 2018 failed because he could move 200 metres using a wheelchair. He is currently awaiting a mandatory reconsideration. One of the confusions is that people cannot understand how they can be awarded a high award in the PIP assessment but then be required to work under the ESA assessment. It does not stack up. One reason it does not stack up is the amateurish and unqualified nature of the staff doing the assessments. This has been a problem from the off. Ministers have had eight years to sort it out, but they have failed.
Let me tell the story of Mr J. Mr J is autistic and has various mental impairments. He had been receiving DLA, but was moved to PIP. He applied for ESA and was placed in the support group. He was unaware that his ESA was contribution-based rather than income-based. When he went to the chemist and was given the prescription form, he ticked the box because he had previously been entitled to free prescriptions, but that was no longer the case. A fine was issued, which the family had to pay. Mr J’s mother had to intervene and become the appointee to deal with the issue, as Mr J was plainly not capable of doing so himself.
Mr J is not a one-off. He is not unusual. Five years ago, 30,000 people were fined for falsely saying that they were entitled to NHS prescriptions. Last year the figure was 1 million, and it was 1 million because the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions are not properly co-ordinated. The Department for Work and Pensions does not give people the information that they need when they receive their benefits, and the Department of Health and Social Care is hounding them for money. For the Minister, on a nice ministerial salary of £98,000 a year, a £100 fine might not be a lot, but for people with incomes of £100-£150, it is a whole week’s income.
This is a complete disgrace. It is utterly careless. We have been raising the issue with Ministers for the last six months and they have still not sorted it out. Of course I am not saying that Ministers set out to fine a million people—that would be a ridiculous assertion—but it is sometimes culpable to be careless, and this Government are careless of disabled people.

Giles Watling: If I may, I will bring the debate back to the actual motion, which calls on the Government to commission an independent assessment of the cumulative impact of changes to the social security system. This is an important issue, and it is right that we should discuss it today. Let me add that it is an honour to follow the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
Of course we must ensure that the social security system works for everyone. It should be a safety net to help those who have fallen on hard times, but it should also help people to stand on their own two feet. When they cannot do that, it should be there to support them and enable them to lead decent lives.
If we are to consider the motion properly, we must recognise that, because of the Government’s actions, disability spending will be higher in every year to 2020, relative to both 2010 and today. Thanks to their reforms, the average weekly award of PIP is more than £13 higher than the old DLA award, and 87% of claimants say that they are satisfied with their claimant journeys. In this year alone, £50 billion will be spent to support people with disabilities and health conditions. There are further achievements that I could stand here and natter on about, but for the sake of brevity, I will merely say that the Government have a strong track record on disability support.
Moreover, the NHS, which has now been given a record level of funding thanks to this Government, will continue to offer unparalleled care to people with poor health. As for carers, their allowance has increased from  £116 to £120 a week since 2010. There is more support for carers, and it has grown faster than wages. In the context of the motion—to which I return again—that is very good news. The changes will almost certainly have a positive impact within the wider social security system, and will benefit sick and disabled people and their families and carers. I do not think we need an independent assessment to tell us that.
Let me make a quick point about universal credit. I believe that the purpose of any social security system should be to help people into work and give them the satisfaction that work provides, rather than creating yet another culture of dependency that the country simply cannot afford. It is estimated that universal credit will help 200,000 more people into work when it is fully rolled out, and will empower people to work an extra 113 million hours a year. For disabled people specifically, they have boosted income of about £110 a month thanks to the increased support under UC. On a recent visit to my local jobcentre, my staff and I found that the majority of claimants in my constituency are happy with UC according to jobcentre staff. In fact, the staff there are very happy to be dealing with it; they prefer it to the old legacy benefits.
I had a recent case of a disabled gentleman who was struggling to find outreach support from the jobcentre. With the assistance of a local councillor we were able to help this gentleman. I raised this case with the Secretary of State this week, and I am pleased that she said that she would look at ways to promote that outreach so that people are aware of the services offered at our jobcentres.

Ruth George: The hon. Gentleman is painting an extremely rosy picture of circumstances in Clacton. Is he aware of the visit a month ago to Clacton of the UN special rapporteur on poverty, and his report on the serious poverty he found there and the lack of support for people, including those with disabilities?

Giles Watling: Of course I am aware of the visit of the UN rapporteur, whom I met for two hours. He spent, I think, two hours in Jaywick, where there absolutely are problems; he arrived, spoke to the people of Jaywick and went away in two hours. That shows total disrespect for the staff and the officers of the local council who have been working so hard for so long to improve the situation in Jaywick. We are building 10 more houses there: five for council housing and five starter homes. We have bought 30 hectares of land and we are expanding our works in Jaywick, and things in Jaywick are improving. Moreover the rapporteur’s visit irritated the people of Jaywick greatly; it irritated them that somebody yet again has come to Jaywick, looked at it and said, “This is a bad place to live.” No, it is not; it is a wonderful place to live with a wonderful community who are on the up at the moment. I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, as I enjoyed that hugely.
We were the party that introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a groundbreaking Act that was subsequently amended and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. On the specific point about an independent assessment, it is because of the chain of legislative changes that we started that all Departments and public bodies now have a responsibility for considering and  monitoring the impact of policies on disabled people. This is the case for all policy, not just disability-related policies.
Finally—and this is the crucial point—if we commission this assessment, we must recognise that the DWP does not believe it is methodologically sound to publish a cumulative impact separately for disabled people. The main reasons are that the Department’s survey data are limited, particularly in terms of capturing the severity of disability, and because most people live in households with others, the Department does not know how incomes are shared. It is very hard to look at effects separately for the disabled. That will be the case for an independent body, too, so there is no point in commissioning a flawed and inaccurate assessment; that helps nobody.

Stephen Lloyd: I congratulate my colleague the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this important debate and I appreciate the Backbench Business Committee’s granting it.
This is an interesting situation, because I support some elements of UC. I remember supporting it in the coalition. There were elements of it that I pointed out at the time would cause problems. Some of what I said was taken on board, but unfortunately some was not and we have reaped the whirlwind all these years later. A key element of UC that I supported avidly was around working allowance, and I was disappointed that that was cut to ribbons in 2015, although I was delighted only a few months ago that £1.7 billion was restored, if not the full amount. So, there has been a bit of progress.
I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth—I call her my hon. Friend even though we are in different parties—on the Work and Pensions Committee between 2010 and 2015, and we saw a lot of things in the same light. That is one of the reasons that I think today’s request is not unreasonable. Anyone who was born with a disability or acquired it when very young faces an enormous challenge to get work. I know this because I have been working in this area for more than 30 years. After the kerfuffle earlier today, I should tell the House that I have been hard of hearing for 50 years and I am quite a good lipspeaker. I have kept silent about that, however. I decided that there was enough Sturm und Drang without my chucking any more into it. I am going to rise above that.
Disabled people face barriers to employment, to education and in many other areas. A Conservative Member made the point that it was the Conservatives in the early 1990s who introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I know that well, because I helped to campaign for it, all those years ago when I was young and had no grey hair. I met John Major at the time, and he was very impressive on the issue. The DDA was a huge game changer. Without that law, we would not have made anywhere near the amount of advances on disability discrimination in services and employment that we have in fact made. However, there is a long way to go, and that is often because people do not understand the barriers that disabled people face.
Governments on all sides often point out that, under the DDA, someone who acquires a disability while working can keep their job. That is a great thing, and it is really important, but I know loads of disabled people who would give their right arm just to get in the door and be given a job. The system is now much better at protecting people who, sadly, acquire a disability through illness, for example, and that represents fantastic progress. However, the thing that has not changed in all the years I have been in politics, and all the years before that when I was involved in this area, is that it is still incredibly hard for a disabled person to get a job.
On top of that, people have to deal with the incredibly unwise move by the DWP a couple of years ago—before the present Ministers were in situ—to change elements of the capability assessment. The Government kept the support group and a couple of the other groups, but they changed the part of the employment and support allowance that helps disabled people to get work. They changed the income so that it was the same as that of jobseeker’s allowance, or just above it, rather than retaining the higher amount that was available to the support group. That was such a foolish move. I was not an MP at the time—I had a brief two-year period after 2015 when I was not an MP, then I came back—and I remember writing to my colleagues and to the then Ministers about the decision.
Human nature is human nature, and if the additional payment is reduced by 20% for disabled people who are prepared to try to find work, with support, those people will of course strive darn hard to get into the support group. That is not wrong; that is what happens. If I had been off work for six or seven years, and I had been persuaded by my work coach at the Jobcentre Plus to go into an ESA cohort that would give me a little more money than pure JSA—a little less than in the support group but more than JSA—I would be willing to go into that group because there would be more income and also because the work coach would be there to help me to find work. If the rules were then changed, so that my money was exactly the same as it would be on JSA, I would try to stay in the support group—it would be bonkers not to, to be perfectly honest. That is just human nature. That was really frustrating, so I was not surprised to learn that there have been real problems in that area over the ensuing years, and that a lot of people have moved over to the support group who perhaps would not have done so.
There are still some really odd anomalies. I have recently been helping a constituent who had worked for the DWP at the local Jobcentre Plus for x number of years. Unfortunately he became ill, and after a few years it was clear that his illness was stopping him working effectively, even part time. The DWP did its best to help him through the process, but eventually he was let go, under proper due process—I have no complaints about that, and neither did he. Two years later he was on ESA and had to go for a work capability assessment, because the DWP’s system had said, “No, you’re not disabled enough to have these benefits.” He was disabled enough to be made redundant but not disabled enough a few years later to actually get the benefits, which was ridiculous. I do not believe that it was a conspiracy; I believe that it was classic dim bureaucracy. I try to provide support at tribunals where possible, so one member of my office team—I am training up a second colleague—joined my  constituent to act as an advocate at tribunal. He won and is now getting all the benefits to which he is entitled.
My point is that that clunkiness happens more often for someone who is disabled. I know so much about this subject, having worked with so many thousands of people over the years, so that is why I believe we need an assessment. I do not think that is unreasonable. I do not agree with all the things that it is suggested are required. My colleague the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth would be surprised if I agreed with her on everything, but I agree with her on this. We need a specific assessment of the impact that the changes are having on disabled people. If we do not have that, I fear for the really huge migration—the million migration—although I accept that the Government have been making some good amendments to universal credit, sometimes through gritted teeth. That is why I do not think that it is unreasonable to ask for an independent impact assessment that is focused on disabled people.

Debbie Abrahams: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Centre for Welfare Reform recently published an analysis of the Government’s reasons for not producing a cumulative impact assessment? In summary, it found no good reason why the Government should not evaluate the combined impact of their policies.

Stephen Lloyd: I was not aware of that, but it makes my case perfectly. As the hon. Lady knows, that is a good lobby group, from a different perspective—from the right of centre. What we have is left of centre, centre—an empty void these days, but that is by the by—and right of centre all telling the Government to have the impact assessment.

Giles Watling: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if the impact assessment is based on faulty data, and therefore comes up with faulty answers, it is not worth having?

Stephen Lloyd: I have to say to the hon. Gentleman, with genuine respect, that I think the Department is spinning to him on that. I know a lot about disability statistics, including all the different Government and DWP statistics, and I do not believe that it would be beyond the wit of man to come up with the model that gets over the particular hurdle he has talked about. My view is that the hurdle is not as dramatic as the DWP is saying. We might have to agree to disagree, but I genuinely believe that, and I have worked a lot with the DWP over the years under different Governments.
I will now close, as I know others wish to speak. The request for an independent assessment is not unreasonable, and it would do the Government credit to accept it. On that basis, I hope the Minister is listening.

Luke Graham: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is clearly well informed on these issues and who shares my love of statistics.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this debate. Opposition Members have talked about the UN report and the Government’s supposed complacency,  and I make it clear that, in the 18 months I have been here, not one of my colleagues or I have been complacent about the welfare policies we see play out in our constituencies every single day. I will elaborate on some of the areas where I think we are doing quite well and on other areas where there is still scope for further reform, on which I am sure colleagues will want to work with me and, of course, with Ministers in trying to deliver.
We are having this debate against the backdrop of significant changes to our welfare policy. DLA is being phased through to PIP, along with attendance allowance for pensioners with care needs. We have seen a big difference in how the money is being spent, too.
Some Opposition Members have criticised the Government, saying that costs have been cut on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society. I have heard that allegation made against Ministers time and again, which is why I went to the Library to look at the overall expenditure within our welfare system. Breaking it down, around £10.3 billion was being spent on DLA in 2009-10—we did not have PIP in 2009-10—and in 2017-18 around £16 billion was being spent on DLA plus PIP. In cash terms, there has not been a reduction in overall expenditure.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who is no longer in her place, said that we are cutting costs on the backs of the most vulnerable, which is neither fair nor accurate. If we are to have a proper debate on how to help the most vulnerable in our society, we should speak to the right facts. The facts and statistics have come up as an issue time and again, including in the House this week. We owe it to all our constituents to speak to the facts, and if Opposition Members dispute the facts, they should take it up with the Library.
In looking at how the policies have come across, not only has the way in which the money is distributed changed, but so has how services are delivered. What has happened with a lot of the welfare reforms—I have seen it, and my constituents have come to my office to speak about it—is that many people on legacy benefits are, for the very first time, having some of the assumptions challenged and are being asked for reassessments. Sometimes that is for the good, but sometimes there has been a detrimental impact where they have fallen through the different changes. They might have had a change of circumstances, or they might have moved between counties or to different parts of the country, which has had a negative impact. I have asked questions of Ministers in the House to try to tackle those issues.

Debbie Abrahams: How many disabled people were supported by the social security system in 2009, and how many are supported now? It is important to have the denominator value so that we have a rate, not just cash values.

Luke Graham: I could not agree more. I find it interesting that we have had an increase of around 800,000 people aged 16 to 64 who are now being classified as disabled. I understand that they had previous classifications within the welfare system and were receiving different benefits, so a simple change in the denominator would not indicate the impact.
The Government have made commitments to people in receipt of cash benefits. [Interruption.] It is a fair point. The hon. Lady asked me a direct question, and I gave her a direct answer. Again, I would happily debate the number of people who are now being classified as disabled.
There have been some positive movements in the Government’s changes. We have seen the employment rate for disabled people go up from 43% to 51%, which is welcome. I referred to Access to Work earlier, and £104 million went into the scheme in 2016-17, providing support to around 25,000 people.
Again, no Conservative Member is complacent. We are very clear that changes still need to be made. A number of my constituents have talked to me about their experiences of the assessment process, taking me through the paperwork. I have gone through that page by page with them to understand where they are having difficulties. From that, we can see that some of these changes have brought people into our offices; they have brought them into the welfare system. For a long time, they have lagged in the dark, whereas now assumptions are being challenged and new benefits are being offered. As a result, new questions are coming from our constituents, and we should try to answer them as best we can.

Angela Crawley: I commend the hon. Gentleman for giving a far more honest portrayal of his experience of his constituents than other Government Members. May I just challenge a point he made earlier about the figures? Of course, when he refers to these figures, he is being somewhat selective. The rate of inflation means costs have risen since 2010, so naturally the costs, output and spend he refers to will be higher, but that does not necessarily mean that people are not being affected disproportionately.

Luke Graham: We are looking at a 38% increase in cash terms, but if the compound inflation rate over the same period is taken into account, this would come out as less than 38%. I am happy to go through the calculations with the hon. Lady separately, but we would still find a real-terms increase in the benefits that are being paid out.
On all these policies, we, as constituency MPs, see people who come into our offices. They come to see me and my staff in my Alloa office and in my Crieff office, and we see some of the human impact of the changes made in welfare. I support looking at how we assess the impacts on disabled people, because we are putting in a considerable amount of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) made the point about the amount being spent on disabled benefits, and we are one of the highest spenders in the developed world, which should be applauded, but if the money is not getting to the right people at the right time, we need to see exactly how it is being administered and how our services are being delivered on the frontline right across our country.
Like other Members here, I have hosted debates on Disability Confident, which is a fantastic scheme. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) talked about how MPs should be signing up for that. My office is a member of the scheme and the same applies to colleagues from  right across the House. The Minister visited the Glenalmond Timber Company in my constituency, and I hope everyone will be able to join me in congratulating Jed Gardner, its production manager, who now has Disability Confident leader status—the first in Scotland. I hope everyone will congratulate him on the fantastic work being done in Methven to give people with disabilities opportunities to work. When I visited the company and when the Minister did, too, we could clearly see the impact this has on not only individuals, but their family and friends. So some incredibly positive work is being done by this Government, although there are also areas where we need to review and assess continually.
Furthermore, in my constituency, we recently held a joint event with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) on Disability Confident in Alloa, which the local community and the DWP attended. It was hosted in Inglewood House, which, I am glad to say, signed up to the Disability Confident scheme immediately following that event. Again, that is an incredibly positive action, showing that companies in Clackmannanshire, Perth and Kinross are taking Government initiatives from the green Benches here and applying them in daily way where we can see real improvement in our constituents’ lives.
As I said, I have a number of concerns about how the assessment is taking place, and I would support looking at having an assessment of how these things are being delivered. I hope to work with my Government colleagues on how that would be done. I hope that such an assessment would be independent, or certainly objective, to make sure that our constituents, our Government and ourselves will have the best possible view on how these disability benefits are being delivered.

Kate Green: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the recommendation in the Work and Pensions Committee’s report published this week that, while someone is waiting for a work capability assessment, it is unreasonable of the Department not to pay universal credit, because that is leaving people high and dry?

Luke Graham: The short answer is yes. I led the inquiry on universal credit in the Public Accounts Committee, and I refer all Members to the inquiry and subsequent report, where we identified the strengths and shortfalls of the UC system. I hope that Government colleagues have read that report and taken those recommendations into account.
I wish to make one or two final points before summarising. We have talked a lot about statistics. One concern I have—this is often not appreciated in this House—is that the devolution of certain levels of statistics around the country means we often have different levels of government in the UK producing different statistics, which makes like-for-like comparisons quite difficult. When preparing for this debate and for the mental health debate that was pulled, I struggled to get figures from the Library, because in Scotland we are now not going along with certain NHS quality-for-delivery frameworks. Even if different parts of the United Kingdom and different levels of government use different methods, we have to find a statistical method to find a uniform measure so that we can have meaningful debate in this place. Otherwise, we are not comparing apples with apples and we cannot get a real view of how services are being delivered for our constituents.
In that same vein, the devolution of welfare powers has been debated in the past, and I am sure that the debate will be ongoing in this place in the coming years. I have a real concern about the devolution of welfare powers—not because I think that all powers should remain here and I want to sit on the green-Bench throne, but because when we speak to the most vulnerable people in our constituencies, as I know every Member does, we find out that adding another agency or two into the equation would make it even more difficult for them to get the help that they need.
I support this issue, because we should have an objective assessment of what these changes are doing for our constituents and for the most vulnerable people. We are spending the money, but we have to make sure that it goes to the right place. For too long, benefits have been a party political issue. When it comes to disability and helping the most vulnerable people in society, we can look past our party affiliation and deliver for our constituents.

Stephen Kinnock: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on securing this important debate.
On a daily basis, my office sees at first hand the horrendous and appalling impact that the Government’s changes to the social security system have had on some of the most vulnerable people in my Aberavon constituency. Many of my constituents who come to my advice surgeries are at their wits’ end, worried that their benefits are going to be stopped and that they will not be able to pay their rent or put food on the table for their children. We have seen hundreds of vulnerable constituents put through the humiliation of shambolic health assessments that cast doubts on their physical disabilities or mental health issues. Following that humiliation is the awful uncertainty and fear of the appeals process, which we almost always win.
Some people have been awarded no points following PIP or ESA assessments, when it is quite clear that they are struggling with a disability, or when information has been inaccurately recorded. This has eroded confidence in not only the assessment process but the whole system. Universal credit has landed people in rent arrears for the very first time. Some people’s experiences are simply harrowing.
In one case, a woman who had suffered with a degenerative disc condition for 27 years, along with depression and anxiety, waited for more than a year for her ESA assessment, only to have it cancelled on the day. A month later, she was assessed, but the anxiety and stress of the wait, followed by the degrading assessment itself, led to a mini-stroke two days after the assessment. She now has high blood pressure, which puts her at risk of a further stroke. Despite all that, she was put into the work-related category. That decision was overturned following a mandatory reconsideration. She is not alone in having had to go through this process. In Wales in 2017, 75% of PIP decisions and 74% of ESA decisions were overturned on appeal. This high rate is symptomatic of the fundamental flaws in the initial assessment process. If the correct decisions were made from the outset, a lot of the misery, worry and suffering would be avoided.
When we raise these problems with the Government, we get the same response time after time: they do not recognise these big problems and will carry on regardless. They are like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. But that is indicative of the Government’s track record: they carry on until they are shamed into doing something about it. What can be more shaming than when a United Nations poverty envoy says that changes to social security have meant that
“great misery has also been inflicted unnecessarily, especially on the working poor, on single mothers struggling against mighty odds, on people with disabilities who are already marginalized, and on millions of children who are being locked into a cycle of poverty”?
That was published in his report.
It is appalling and inexcusable that this is happening in a G7 country. Our social security system is there as a safety net for the most vulnerable people. Right now, that safety net is failing. MPs, the EHRC and the United Nations have all called on the Government to conduct a cumulative impact assessment. If the Government are so confident that they are doing the right thing, they have nothing to fear over commissioning this assessment. Ultimately, the Government must stop burying their head in the sand over this and wake up to the reality that their punitive and callous policies are causing misery and hardship to hundreds of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people across the country.

Karin Smyth: I very much want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this debate before Parliament, because it allows us to shine a spotlight on the experiences of our constituents who are living with a long-term illness or disability and who are relying on financial support from the Government.
Support has dwindled for these people in recent years, including for the nearly 6,000 people in Bristol South who are currently claiming employment and support allowance because they are unable to work owing to illness or disability. The national evidence is already clear. “The cumulative impact of tax and welfare reforms” report published earlier this year by the EHRC found that changes to taxes, benefits, tax credits and universal credit announced since 2010 affect the poorest the hardest, with ill and disabled people being among the worst hit. It is not just a loss of income, shocking as it is, that has an impact on disabled people; there is something very wrong with the Government’s instructions to the staff at the Department for Work and Pensions and the culture that has been created. The number of constituents in Bristol South who have been forced to appeal and initially refused ESA or personal independence payments is appalling, as others have mentioned.
Fantastic work is being done by South Bristol Advice Services, based in Withywood. It does a great job in supporting those who need help, but the determination required simply to make a claim is often too much for those suffering with long-term conditions or life-changing illnesses. There is little evidence of compassion in the system. Sadly, universal credit is making that situation worse in both financial terms and the complexity of the claim process. The Government have already admitted that the most disabled people’s incomes will  not be fully protected, and I am already seeing constituents who are losing out simply because of a change in circumstances.
Promises about future backdated transitional payments ring hollow when a person cannot afford the rent because their universal credit claim is in disarray three months after moving to a bungalow adapted for their disability. Rent arrears have spiralled. In one case, a blind constituent was informed only in writing that universal credit now included an element for rent. No one contacted her to inform her verbally.
I want to pay tribute to the persistence and resilience of my constituents who daily face the challenge of their medical conditions and who must also deal with the current benefits system. I applaud those who have come to accept that a mandatory reconsideration and an appeal to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service are just part of the claims process. My constituent who informed me that he has completed his third successful appeal has my admiration and respect. However, there are far too many others who simply do not carry on with their claims, who get ground down by the bureaucracy, who miss out on vital financial support and whose health, as others have mentioned, suffers greatly as a consequence.
Of course the Government should commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of changes in the social security system on sick and disabled people, their families and carers, but they should also act now, immediately stopping the roll out of universal credit to ill or disabled people.

Ruth George: Government Members appear to be arguing that there should not be a cumulative impact assessment for disabled people as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has argued so eloquently.

Sarah Newton: indicated dissent.

Ruth George: I am glad that the Minister is disagreeing and I very much hope that she will put me right and will agree to this.
There are plenty of figures out there. We know that 30% of families including someone with a disability are in poverty. That is 10% higher than the rest of the population. In fact, according to the Social Mobility Commission, half of people in poverty—nearly 7 million people—are in a household with an adult who has a disability. Fixing the problems of poverty for people with disabilities will go a long way to fixing the problems of the UK’s high level of poverty.
Over the last eight years, we have seen successive cuts to benefits that affect people with disabilities. From 2013, we saw a 1% benefit uprating for three years. Employment and support allowance lost over 5% of its value compared to the retail prices index and 3% compared to the consumer prices index. The four-year benefits freeze will take off 6.5% compared to the CPI and a full 10% compared to the RPI; 15% of the value of that benefit will be lost over seven years. These are not generous benefits in the first place.
In addition, many disabled people have had to cope with the cuts to local housing allowance, which is down to 30% of median rents. They therefore have to bulk up their rent out of their meagre ESA. Child tax credit has been frozen. The childcare element in tax credits has been at the same maximum since 2005, and the amount of help people can get with childcare costs has reduced from 80% to 70%. In addition we have the bedroom tax, which affects so many people with disabilities, and £30 a week has been abolished for those in the work-related activity group under ESA.
People with disabilities have been facing all those cuts, even before the cuts under universal credit. That is why people with disabilities feel so strongly that there needs to be a cumulative impact assessment of the full impact of the history of serious cuts to their income. Under universal credit, we are also seeing cuts that affect children with disabilities. The Government claim to support and protect the most vulnerable in society, but my constituent—a single parent with a son with a disability—wrote to me saying, “My son is six years old. He is practically bed-bound, yet the Government want to transfer me on to universal credit because I can no longer work to support him, and his support will be reduced. If my disabled son is not one of the most vulnerable people who needs protection and support, then who is?” I put that question to the Minister today.
The difficulties in claiming universal credit for people with disabilities have been set out in many cases elsewhere, but because roll-out so far has been mostly to people who have been on JSA—not to people with disabilities on employment and support allowance—we have not seen the scale of support that is needed. However, as I mentioned earlier, I am already seeing problems in my constituency with regards to people with disabilities getting the home visits that they feel they need.
Families in particular are feeling the cuts, including parents who are disabled with children who are disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth set out the appalling level of cuts—a reduction in income of nearly £10,000 a year—that those families will see under universal credit. It is no wonder that families fear universal credit. A constituent with a four-year-old son who is autistic and non-verbal wrote to me to say that she has had to give up work to care for him because she cannot get care in the school holidays, so as well as losing her own wage, she has also lost tax credits. The family looked to claim housing benefit, but found that they would need to claim universal credit instead. Given that they have already racked up rent arrears because their income has been so reduced, if they faced five weeks’ wait for support under universal credit, they could end up losing the house they have been tenants in for the last 21 years. I hope that the Government will be listening to these real stories of people who are already suffering. I have had universal credit in my constituency for only two and a half months, and I am already seeing constituents who are suffering under it.
That is on top of all the constituents who are suffering from employment support allowance and PIP assessments. In the Work and Pensions Committee, I set out to the Minister the very harrowing account that I had heard of a group of survivors of sexual violence and their experiences of PIP assessments—how one woman was curled up on the floor crying and sobbing uncontrollably while the assessor simply repeated the questions at her deadpan  and offered her no support or understanding whatsoever. I was very pleased that the Minister agreed that that was a disgusting situation that should not be allowed to continue. In response to the Committee’s report on PIP and ESA assessments, the Government promised to look at the recording of those assessments and to bring that in. However, on questioning the permanent secretary today in the Committee, we heard that he had no idea how that was being rolled out, although the commitment to do so was made eight months ago.
A constituent who was looking to claim PIP said that she was forced to purchase her own recording equipment if she wanted her assessment to be recorded, whereas she knows that in the past the assessment centre had used its own equipment. She was also looking to get support with getting to the assessment centre. She was told that she could get there in a taxi but that it would cost £100 up-front and she could only claim that back 30 days after her assessment. People with disabilities are not being treated in the way that they should be treated. I am afraid that this is a culture that we are coming across time and again in what we hear in our constituency surgeries.
The Disability Benefits Consortium found that eight out of 10 people who underwent a PIP assessment found that it made their health worse. Two thirds felt that they had been poorly assessed. Constituents with mental health difficulties, in particular, find that those difficulties are not adequately assessed. One constituent said that, although she presented with serious mental health difficulties, the bulk of the questions she was asked were aimed at her physical health, where she has only minor conditions that do not prevent her from working. Only a third of the time was spent covering her mental health, and those questions were loaded. When she tried to expand and explain her answers, she was told to stick to the questions.
My constituent has been left on the verge of suicide by that assessment and the struggle of waiting for a response as to what will happen as a result. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth set out so starkly, there has been an increase in suicides by people who have been undergoing work capability and PIP assessments. None of us want to see this happen. In Committee, I raised with the Minister the fact that constituents of mine were being asked why they had not yet committed suicide. I was very pleased that she again took up the issue. That question has not come up in the cases that I have received more recently, so I very much hope that that practice is spreading through the privatised companies that do these assessments. However, there is so much more to do, as cases just from my one, very rural and relatively affluent constituency show.

Lisa Cameron: The hon. Lady is making an extremely powerful speech. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for disability, and we have heard that there are particular difficulties for people with acquired brain injury and epilepsy in relation to the types of questions asked in assessments. Does she agree that assessments should be more sensitive to the different types of disability?

Ruth George: The hon. Lady makes a very relevant point. The evidence from my constituents with mental health issues and brain injuries is that assessments are centred on physical health and physical difficulties.
I know from my 20 years working for the shop workers’ union, USDAW, that work is not easy these days, particularly for people with long-term health conditions. Employers now have sickness absence procedures, and employees often cannot have more than three periods of sickness absence, however short, in any six-month period. People with disabilities—particularly those who do not have a union representative to support them under the Equality Act 2010—are simply slipping through the net, not performing and being left out of the workplace.
Unfortunately, universal credit and the cuts to that benefit will trap people who have disabilities more without work, and particularly those who are on a higher-level benefit with premiums and then take up a short period of work. For example, one of my constituents took a job working for Royal Mail for six weeks over the Christmas period, because he felt relatively well and wanted to do it. He has just found out that when he finishes that job, he will be transferred on to universal credit and will lose his transitional protection and support. That is not a message that says to people with disabilities, “Try to work. Try to do your best.”
We see even more problems with the system where people with disabilities are being refused work capability assessments and are not seeing any money at all. One of my constituents was presented to me by a support charity six months ago. It has been trying for six months to get him some money, since he failed his ESA assessment. He had a fit note and should have been getting money. Only with my intervention did he get support. For six months, he was living off friends, family and food bank parcels.

Stephen Timms: I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw this comment from Professor Alston in his report:
“great misery has also been inflicted unnecessarily…on people with disabilities who are already marginalized”.
Ministers have sought to dismiss that criticism, but does that not sum up pretty well the experience of a very large number of people up and down the country?

Ruth George: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important point, on which I was going to end my speech.
I want to quote a constituent with a disability who wrote to me to set out her experience. She was not asking for support—she was able to fight the system—but she said:
“The reason I’m writing to you is to encourage you to keep fighting for us in Westminster, to be the voice that is being taken away from the disabled people in this country. Fight to put an end to this barbaric, humiliating assessment system, where the person who makes life or death decisions doesn’t even get to meet you, isn’t medically qualified (specific to the individual condition) and is meeting targets to refuse claims.”
That is the view of people with disabilities. They want Parliament to be seen to be supporting them. The changes to universal credit in the Budget did not affect people with disabilities, who are some of the worst impacted by cuts to universal credit. I very much hope that the Minister and the Government are listening.

Jim Shannon: I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing it.
Benefits are the biggest issue in my office. I have one member of staff who does nothing else but deal with benefits five days a week; to be honest, she works outside her hours because she is a compassionate lady. The rest of us in the office, including myself, have done DLA appeals, and we still continue to do them. We deal with the benefits system as well, and these are incredibly difficult issues. The Government have indicated that they will review some of the universal credit system, and may I say that that cannot come soon enough?
I want to say something to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who is in his place, and to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, who has left but will no doubt be back shortly. I am not saying this to give them a big head, but both Ministers are very affable and engaging, and they do try to address the issues. I know that because I have spoken to them both. They have come to me to say, “Look, if there’s anything at all that you want to speak about, please speak to us about those things”.
Both the Ministers are keen and eager to help—I say that in advance because I do not want them to think I am attacking them, because I am not doing so—but I have to say that there are things I have to say tonight about universal credit and where it is, and the fact that it is having an impact on my constituents. It would be remiss of me to come to this Chamber and not to say that. I wanted to say that first, because I know the Under-Secretary always responds; he knows that, because I have spoken to him before about it. None the less, we are where we are on these issues.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has done a very in-depth analysis, which I and others have read; indeed, some right hon. and hon. Members have referred to it. It shows that the bottom two deciles will lose, on average, approximately 10% of their net income, with much smaller losses for those higher up the income distribution. Negative impacts are particularly large for households with more disabled members and for individuals with more severe disabilities, as well as for lone parents and those on low incomes.
For some family types, these losses represent an extremely large percentage of income. For example, for households with at least one disabled adult and a disabled child, average annual cash losses will be just over £6,500—over 13% of average net income. Here is a specific figure, because I have some people from Bangladesh in my constituency: the impact of changes to direct taxes and benefits is to reduce the income of Bangladeshi households by some £4,400 per year on average. These are specific points, and I want to say them in a very constructive way to the Under-Secretary, because I know he responds. I am happy to say these things, because I know he will come back, as he always does.
At an individual level, women will lose on average considerably more from changes to direct taxes and benefits than men. Women will lose some £400 per year on average, and men will lose some £30.

Stephen Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. The figures he is talking about are true in my constituency as well. I know one family that is losing just under £500 a month. As we in the Chamber  all know, the reality is that these are substantial sums of money for some of our poorest disabled fellow citizens. There is no point arguing about it any more. That is why I think the request from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for an independent impact assessment is reasonable and fair, and it needs to be a matter of priority, otherwise there will be many more of the stories the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and yes, I totally agree. At the very end, I will make a similar recommendation to what the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
This does affect low-income families. Some of the figures I have mentioned are for men and women, but the figures conceal very substantial variation within both genders. Lone parents in the bottom quintile—the bottom fifth—of the household income distribution lose some 25% of their net income, or £1 in every £4 on average. The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) referred to this earlier, and mentioned very clearly the income impact on those in the lower income brackets.
On average, disabled lone parents with at least one disabled child fare even worse, losing almost £3 out of every £10 of their net income. In cash terms, their average losses are almost £10,000 per year. That is massive, and we cannot ignore those things. Those things really quite annoy me, and I think they annoy us all. In fairness, I think they probably annoy Ministers as well, but we do need a response from Ministers if we are to deal with them.
Around 1.5 million more children are forecast to be living in households below the relative poverty line. These are massive issues; in Northern Ireland, and in my constituency, children are sliding into poverty as a result of these reforms. I am being completely honest, Madam Deputy Speaker: these things are happening, in my constituency! And they are happening in everybody else’s as well.
We quite recently had the roll-out of universal credit, so we know these things come in almost like a storm breaking over people. The statistics carry on, but this gives a very clear picture to me. We were told that universal credit would be beneficial to households in need. I have to say honestly, I do not see that happening at this moment. To see disabled homeless people being so massively affected is totally unacceptable. For that reason, I support the recommendations of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It recommends that the UK Government should:
“1. Monitor and publish the impact of welfare reforms on disabled people, including assessment of the cumulative impact of tax and social security changes.”
I think that if we get those facts, they will tell the tale.
“2. Review the levels of benefits to ensure they provide an adequate standard of living.”
It is so important. People are falling into poverty, and children in particular. I always get annoyed when I hear of children living below poverty levels; I think others might as well.
“3. Ensure that work coaches are trained to deliver tailored employment support so that the specific needs of disabled people are being met.”
How important that is.

Justin Tomlinson: indicated assent.

Jim Shannon: I think the Minister is nodding his head, and I think he accepts that, but we need to have people that can do that for them. We deal with them every day of the week in my office, and in every other hon. Member’s office. I am not different from anybody else—we are all the same.
The EHRC also recommends that the Government should:
“4. Make the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities…part of UK law”—
that is what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) referred to in his intervention—
“so individuals can effectively challenge rights violations in the domestic legal system, and develop a clear and coordinated plan for how the UK and devolved”
Administrations
“will systematically address the UN’s recommendations on disability rights.”
I have been contacted in the last two days by some constituents. The hon. Member for High Peak referred to a quotation from some of her constituents. My constituents have asked me to highlight the fact that universal credit simply isn’t working. Those are real-life responses from real people with real problems. They have asked me to make contact with the Department, especially with Ministers, to ensure that their voices were heard in the midst of everything that has happened in this House today. We all know about it—I get a sore head just thinking about it. I assured my constituents that I would ensure that I voiced their concerns today, in the presence of the responding Minister. The concerns are as follows.
The Government say that no one falls through the cracks and ends up losing their benefit, because they will make sure that everyone claiming benefits under the old system is moved automatically on to universal credit and not forced to make a new claim. The Government say that no one is left without the money they need to survive, because they are continuing to pay people all of their old benefits until their new ones have kicked in. The Government say that everyone is protected from becoming worse off under the new system, especially vulnerable groups. I say that is a very vulnerable assumption to make. I do not for one second say that that is the purpose of what the Government have put forward, but currently the Department is failing people.
I know of many people who went to the jobcentre and went through the online process with a member of staff and then came into my office. The benefits office—what we would have called the bru office many years ago—is just around the corner from my office, so most people come to me when they have a problem, to talk to my staff members. Although they went through the online process with a member of staff, they then came to my office, in tears, as they simply could not understand what was happening to them. They could not understand that they had not got their benefits. They could not understand the paperwork system. I do not want to be too critical, but I have to say these things, as that is what has happened.
People are sick with worry, not understanding what is happening or what is required of them. They are very worried about their benefit, and when we think that  many of those who are on universal credit are ill, and that the stress of this makes things worse, it is clear that we are failing. We are failing the most vulnerable, and much as I would love to help every person on universal credit, my staff are doing nothing else but that.
I observe, by the way, in the news that staff in one of the jobs and benefits offices were enjoying a celebratory cake for doing an excellent job and seeing the end of the roll-out in Northern Ireland. There was not much of a celebration in Newtownards about it, and that is a fact. Nor was there a celebration anywhere else. That is not saying that they should not have enjoyed the cake; I am just saying, celebrate when it is good but do not celebrate when it is not. Too many people are anxious and concerned. I would ask the Minister to assure me, and others in the House, that changes are on the way for the most vulnerable in the practicality of the roll-out, and changes in how it is affecting all of those I listed earlier.
I understand that we need all those who are able to work to do just that. That is very constructive and helpful, but let us be honest: are people on benefits and sickness benefits because they want to be? No, they are not. They want to work the same as the rest of them. It is perfectly plausible to put that forward. But I also understand that forcing those who are not able to work to worry and make themselves ill is cruel and unnatural. It must not happen. We need changes, yes. We also need assurances and action. I look to the Minister and the Department as to how and when that will happen.

Angela Crawley: Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your fortitude, and that of the previous occupant of the Chair, at this time of the evening. It has been a long week. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for bringing forward this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Welfare reform has had a huge impact on my constituents, in particular on the lives of disabled people. That is the case not just in my constituency, but across the UK. Regardless of the rhetoric of those on the Government Benches that welfare reforms are helping people back into work, the reality is that the conditions are getting harder for those who are most in need of assistance.
Despite the War on Welfare petition with over 100,000 signatures calling on the Government to introduce cumulative impact assessments, the Government have been unrelenting in introducing these changes. For many, they have earned a reputation for having a hostile environment when it comes to these welfare changes, coupled with the Government’s austerity measures, notwithstanding the impact of Brexit and the potential for a further weakened economy. The reality is that it will be the most vulnerable and the disabled who will be hardest hit by Brexit. Whether it is Brexit, the initial 2012 changes or the 2016 welfare reforms, we have to acknowledge that they are not working as well as they could be in practice. That is not a political statement; it is a matter of fact that they are not working as well as they could be. Unlike some Ministers, I know that the Minister of State for Disabled People cares deeply and she will want to get this right.
We have heard many contributions from across the House from right hon. and hon. Members, who have conducted themselves, may I say, immeasurably better in the Chamber than in recent weeks. They have served their constituents admirably better on this important matter. It is worth highlighting some of those valuable contributions. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth rightly highlighted the WOW campaign and the disproportionate impact on disabled people, families and carers. This is not a political statement, but something we all, across the House, want to get right. I know the Minister shares the same passion to get it right.
The hon. Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and for Clacton (Giles Watling), I am sorry to say, gave a rather rosy depiction. I am afraid I do not share the same optimistic view. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) for being a bit more realistic about the experience of his constituents. The fact is that there are elements of this that can be reviewed and reformed, and we all want to do that.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) highlighted the range of cuts. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke passionately, as always, about the impact on WASPI women, who are working longer and harder under the pension changes. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) rightly highlighted that many disabled constituents want to work but cannot. That reminded me of the phrase that a good friend, Susan Douglas-Scott, said to me: often, it is society that disables individuals, not the individuals themselves. The hon. Members for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) highlighted the UN report and the EHRC report, and the joint calls for cumulative impact assessments. Of course, no debate would be complete without the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who needs no further words.
My constituent Liam from Hamilton has been trying to get the limited capability for work element for his universal credit, but so far he has been unsuccessful in his work capability assessment. His doctor, however, is adamant that Liam should not be working. Liam was a heavy goods courier. After a work-related injury, he cannot stand for any length of time and he cannot walk without fear of falling or his knees giving way. He has experienced heart palpitations, high blood pressure, numbness of limbs and sleepless nights as a result of various medical treatments. Despite all that, the gravity of his disabilities is not reflected in his medical assessment. Many of the conclusions of the assessment were based on assumptions rather than evidence. That seems to be a theme in many of the assessments.
Liam was therefore required, as part of universal credit, to claim to search for jobs for which he is physically unsuited and to attend training sessions for jobs he cannot do. This included a session with Remploy, the specialist charity for disabled employment, whose staff are experts in this area, but which refused to put Liam forward for any jobs because he was physically unsuitable for anything it could offer.
It is a shame that Liam is in this position. He has a very strong work ethic and wants nothing more than to get back to work. He is becoming increasingly frustrated  by this situation because he is unable to provide for his children. He is a single parent with shared custody and often unable to see his own children because there is no food in the house and he is unable to feed them. Is it right that families should be forced to make these decisions? The system is clearly flawed and not working. This man cannot work, yet he cannot even see his own children because he cannot afford to feed them. It is heartbreaking.
For many of those claiming PIP and employment support, the situation is not much better. The assessment criteria for these benefits do not appear to have been written by disabled people with disabled people in mind; rather they are tick-box exercises carried out by ill-trained staff. It is abundantly clear from many of the cases that have come through that my office and the assessors do not pick up on all the issues faced by disabled constituents. Yet I am asked daily to advocate on their behalf, when I do not even know the half of their situation or the magnitude of their disability. How can a work capability assessment or adviser assess that in less than five minutes, 20 minutes or half an hour? It is not possible. We have to be realistic.
On Friday, I visited a local charity in my constituency, Esteem, which I sponsored this year for my annual Christmas card competition and which supports people with mental ill health. It highlighted the experience of many of the clients it sees on a day-to-day basis who have gone through the jobcentre and faced horrible experiences. I know that that is not everyone’s experience, or the intention of any staff member in the local jobcentre, but Esteem has identified that employees and staff do not feel adequately trained or qualified to assess individuals and are bending over backwards to prevent people from receiving further cuts. They are doing everything they can. It is not the fault of staff that the policy is flawed, and I do not blame them for administering the policy set by the Government.
This flawed assessment process is resulting in inaccuracies being reported to the DWP and leading to far lower amounts of benefit being given than what is needed to fit people’s circumstances and to give them the right level of support. In some instances, DWP staff are advising people not to switch because it would be less beneficial for them. There might be issues with the legacy system, but clearly there are also issues with this system, if DWP staff are having to give that kind of advice to get people through the process. We have to acknowledge the flaws.
Having to fight to overturn a case causes huge stress to claimants as well as putting extra pressure on agencies, citizens advice bureaux and MPs’ offices. It is admirable that, as we have heard, Members across the House have gone out of their way to help individuals to fill in forms, go through mandatory reconsiderations and get the right support, but, ultimately, if the system worked as it should, we would not have to do that; we should not have to do that. It is not a good use of our office resources, staff or processes.
We have to get to the root cause. This situation demonstrates how unfit for purpose the current system is. Another of my constituents, Darin, suffers from a chronic condition as well as mental health issues, but he lost his entitlement to an enhanced rate of PIP and mobility element in a recent reassessment. The assessor clearly did not consider the full range of his needs.  For example, he is deemed personally able to manage his own treatments, but in reality he relies on his mother to take care of his medication and to wake him up every morning to make sure he gets the appropriate medication and support. He cannot do that on his own, yet his mother’s caring role was completely disregarded. It was Darin’s mother who approached my office, which helped to get the case overturned under a mandatory reconsideration, but we should not have had to do that. That anxiety and stress could have been avoided altogether had the assessment been accurate in the first place.
Another constituent approached my office after losing the Motability element of his PIP reassessment. He had an adapted car, which was necessary for him to get to appointments and to maintain his independence. However, the assessor who carried out the review found that he did not require help with mobility, despite having lost one of his legs. He also lost all his entitlement to PIP during that reassessment. Again, he dealt with the matter through my office, and had to undergo the process of mandatory reconsideration—not to mention the impact on his family of the shock, the stress and the senseless removal of support. The fact was that he simply had no alternatives.
The system can be senseless and excessively technocratic, although that is not always the case. It takes no account of how the removal of financial support or help in the form of, for instance, a mobility car will affect disabled people, making their lives far more difficult.
In a similar case, my constituent Margaret, from Carluke, lost her Motability car during her transition from DLA to PIP, which left her housebound. She successfully disputed the distance that she could walk, reducing it from the 20 to 50 metres in the assessment report to 1 to 20 metres. Her Motability car was returned but, in the meantime, unfortunately, she had bought another. That meant that, although she was receiving the correct level of support, her living standards had been needlessly reduced by the reassessment process.
If the system works as well as we have heard it does in so many accounts, why does every single one of our offices, each and every day, have to help people to counter it? The fact is that it simply is not working as it should. I think it not unreasonable to suggest to the Minister that the motion offers the Government an opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the assessment criteria, with the meaningful involvement of disabled people and those with long-term conditions, to ensure that the criteria are fair and truly reflect the extra costs that people face and the myriad conditions that affect them. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire rightly admitted that a continual review and assessment were required.
Let me end by asking the Minister a simple question. If the Government can spend limitless amounts on Brexit and on planning for no deal, why can they not introduce an independent cumulative impact assessment of their welfare reforms?

Marsha de Cordova: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)  for initiating a similar debate four years ago and pay tribute to his hard work in championing the rights of disabled people. I thank the War on Welfare campaigners for their work over the past six years in making the voices of disabled people heard in the House, along with other disabled people’s organisations and campaigners. More than 100,000 people signed the WOW petition which first brought the debate to the House.
Today, we have heard accounts from Members on both sides of the House. Let me mention just a few. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) described the devastating impact of social security cuts and, in particular, the impact of cut in the Motability scheme. Many disabled people have lost that vital support. She also spoke of the impact of the movement of many recipients of disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) shared personal and powerful testimonies from his constituents, but also highlighted the shocking statistics relating to the number of decisions on both employment and support allowance and PIP that were overturned in tribunals.
We are not asking the Government to reveal the truth about the effects of cuts on disabled people; we are asking them to own up to creating a social security system for disabled people that the UN report on extreme poverty described as “callous”, “punitive” and “mean-spirited”; a system that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has labelled as responsible for “grave” and “systemic” human rights violations; and a system that the Council of Europe concluded does not conform with the European social charter’s guarantee of the right to social security.
We are demanding that the Government own up to the effects of over £40 billion of cuts to disabled people’s social security since 2010, to imposing a sanctions regime on sick and disabled ESA claimants, to a cruel and callous assessment framework for both PIP and ESA and to the human catastrophe that is UC.
In the past eight years, disabled people have been forced to bear the brunt of the Tory austerity programme. They have been consistently and disproportionately impacted by cuts to social care, legal aid, housing, education and social security, as well as cuts to the independent living fund. The Centre for Welfare Reform has found that disabled people have been hit nine times harder by austerity than the rest of the population. Disabled people have been punished by this Government’s austerity agenda. They have been punished by the abolition of the DLA and the introduction of PIP in April 2013, and we know the policy intention for abolishing DLA was to reduce expenditure on disability benefits by 20%, a move that has left hundreds of thousands without the support they need. Those people include a constituent of mine who suffers from chronic kidney disease and has been HIV-positive for 30 years and who was given zero points on his PIP assessment, despite being unable to undress or prepare food by himself and despite being in receipt of DLA for 20 years.
Disabled people have been punished by the gutting of ESA, by introducing the 12-month time-limited payments for those on the contributions-based element, by the tightening of the ESA criteria and by the devastating cut to the ESA work-related activity component, worth £30 per week, introduced in 2017, which has hit over  50,000 people this year. And disabled people have been punished by an inaccurate and callous assessment framework that denies them dignity and respect—an assessment framework that has forced over a quarter of a million disabled people to take the DWP to tribunal to get the social security that they are entitled to and under which 72% of PIP decisions brought to appeal are overturned.
Since 2010, disabled people have been punished by a “pointlessly cruel” sanctions regime, which has hit more than 1 million disabled people in the past eight years and which the Welfare Reform Act 2012 ensured was more severe, more punitive and more long-lasting than ever before, resulting in disabled people facing severe debt, skipping meals and taking out loans because they missed appointments at the jobcentre or did not fill out enough job applications. Figures released by the DWP last month show that 10% of ESA sanctions last longer than 26 weeks, so sick and disabled people are losing six months-worth of their income.
Most importantly, disabled people face the Government’s flagship UC system, which acts as little more than a vehicle for cuts. Today’s Work and Pensions Committee report has confirmed the devastating truth of the impact of UC on disabled people and of the structural problems inherent to UC such as the five-week wait and an online claims system that is inaccessible to many people. Under UC, just one in three disabled people receive their payments on time and in full, with the rest having to wait weeks on end before receiving payment. Severely disabled people moving on to UC are losing vital social security support that they need in the form of disability premiums, including the severe disability premium that they would have had under legacy social security worth £64.40 a week—payments that severely disabled people relied on to cover extra costs for ready meals and help with household tasks.
For one severely disabled person, UC meant that they received no money for six weeks, on top of losing their SDP. The delays in payment and losing the premium meant that they were forced to get help from the council, which gave them food vouchers so that they had something to eat. In their own words, they felt “embarrassed and degraded” by a system that left them destitute. It took a year for their UC payments to be sorted out, with endless calls that
“were too physically and mentally painful to make.”
The Government made a grave error in cutting disability premiums for those who are most in need. The transitional protections that this Government were forced to give as a result of a High Court ruling earlier this year do not apply to new applicants or to those who naturally migrated to universal credit, whose conditions remain the same but who will lose that vital support. So I ask the Minister today to commit to ensuring that no severely disabled person who moves on to universal credit will lose their premiums.
In the words of one WOW petition campaigner, in the past eight years this Government have created
“a hostile environment for sick and disabled people”
that
“has turned life into a living hell”.
They have created a hostile environment in the form of a punitive social security system that is stacked against disabled people. It is a system that is littered with errors such as the underpayment of ESA to almost 200,000 claimants by this Government. Disabled people have had to rely on the High Court to right the terrible wrongs in the social security system. In the past year alone, the High Court found that the Government unlawfully discriminated against hundreds of thousands of PIP claimants and that they unlawfully discriminated against severely disabled people who lost disability premiums.
Conservative Members continue to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the suffering that they have caused. Over the past months, we have heard Ministers, including the former Secretary of State, label cuts to disabled people as “fake news” and the issues surrounding universal credit as “teething problems”. They dismiss the findings of UN investigations as politically motivated, and they dismiss calls to conduct a cumulative impact assessment that would offer a definitive analysis of the human cost of eight years of austerity for disabled people. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Social Security Advisory Committee have joined the call for that assessment to be done. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has carried out an impact assessment, and its findings were stark. We know that an impact assessment can be done by the Treasury, and if not, the Institute for Fiscal Studies can carry out an independent assessment.
How many more disabled people have to suffer under this Government’s austerity programme? How many more reports will link the Government’s policies with mental distress and suicide, yet be ignored? The fact that the Government refute the findings of the UN on the effects of austerity on disabled people is shameful, but the fact that they refuse to conduct an assessment of the human impact of their own policies is downright denial.

Sarah Newton: I should like to add my voice to those congratulating the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing such an important debate. It is to the great credit of the House that, after what have been an emotional, long and tiring few weeks here, Members from every country of Great Britain are here tonight to speak up so well and so passionately for their constituents. This is probably our last full debate before the Adjournment debate tomorrow, and it is right that we have focused on such an important issue as the disabled people in our country and the amazing contribution that they make.
Of course, we should rightly focus all our efforts on what more we can do for those who are vulnerable and need our support, and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to ensure that we are doing everything we can to live up to the ideals of the United Nations conventions, which we helped to design, and to those of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which a Conservative Prime Minister introduced in this House. There is also cross-party support for the Equality Act 2010, which underpins so much of what we are doing. These are important issues that should unite the House, and I am pleased to have heard a lot of constructive comments this evening.  I have very little time, and I will not be able to answer all the questions that have been raised, but I will write to hon. Members if I have not been able to address their concerns. I want to focus on the motion, as it is so important.
I want to reassure hon. Members that the Government do publish distributional analysis of the cumulative impact of Government decisions on household finances at every fiscal event. The last publication was in October, to accompany the autumn Budget, and assessed the tax, welfare and public spending changes announced from the 2016 autumn statement onwards that carry a direct and quantifiable impact on households. Her Majesty’s Treasury uses its intragovernmental tax and benefits microsimulation model to produce that analysis, and the underlying data comes from the Office for National Statistics annual living costs and food survey.
Her Majesty’s Treasury uses the LCF survey, because it is the primary source of data about what income people have, how they spend their money and what public services they have accessed. The survey is unique in capturing all that information. Only by assessing the impact of Government policy on each of these areas can an accurate and fully comprehensive assessment of the total impact of all Government policies on welfare, taxes and spending on public services be made. Looking at only one aspect, such as changes to income from benefits, does not provide a complete picture and is misleading. For example, the Government have committed to increasing spending on the NHS by £20 billion, which will have a positive and direct impact on the lives of millions of disabled people. To look only at benefits would be really misleading.
The LCF survey came into existence in 2007, but a household food consumption and expenditure survey has been run by Government since the 1940s. The primary purpose of these surveys has always been to collect detailed expenditure data for a sample of people, which is then used to assess changes in people’s spending patterns in order to adjust the basket of goods used to estimate inflation. The survey does not collect information from the sample of individuals that would allow us to assess whether a person is disabled—it has never been able to do that. As with all Government surveys, taking part is voluntary and a difficult balance has to be struck between the amount of information we are asking respondents to provide, and therefore the time it takes to complete the survey, and the proportion of the sample who are willing to take part. The survey sample is designed to be representative of the population, and the more people who do not respond, the more the estimates from the survey potentially suffer in quality.
Therefore, the lack of information about disability means that the information does not exist for the Treasury to estimate the cumulative impact of all Government policies on disabled people. However, the Office for National Statistics is currently undertaking developments to its household surveys to integrate various surveys and to link various sources of administrative data held by the Government, which means it might be possible to have the required information on disability status in future. The ONS is consulting users, and I have instructed my officials to raise the issue of disability status in the living costs and food survey. I encourage stakeholders, and all Members who care about this as much as I do, to contact the ONS, which is independent, and raise the issue. If we had that information, and if the ONS  proceeds in the way I have just described by linking datasets, it would be possible for us to undertake the sorts of assessments that people have articulated so well this evening.
However, although a cumulative impact assessment is not possible now, the DWP does undertake a wide range of other research and analysis to assess and monitor the impact of policies on disabled people. The DWP runs its own household survey—the family resources survey—which collects information from a sample of households, with detailed information on sources of income, the amount of income families receive and detailed information on the characteristics of the people in those households.

Stephen Timms: rose—

Sarah Newton: I have said that I will not take interventions, in order to answer all the questions, but I will write to any Members I am unable to answer in the time available.
The family resources survey collects the information required to make an assessment of the disability status of people in a household. The information is then used to provide estimates of the amount of income that families with disabled people have. The DWP publishes estimates of the numbers and percentages of people within households with disabled people who have low incomes in the annual “Households below average income” publication.
In the 2016-17 survey, we saw that 16% of people in families with a disabled person were described as in absolute low-income poverty before housing costs, with a weekly income after tax of £280 or less for a couple with no children, compared with 19% in 2009-10. Absolute low-income poverty, on a before housing costs basis, has actually improved by three percentage points since 2010 for families with a disabled person.
Looking at all four measures of low-income poverty—before and after housing costs, and on a relative and on an absolute basis—poverty for people in families with a disabled person has improved since 2010 on three of the four measures, and there was no change in the fourth. I am not complacent. One person living in poverty in this country is one person too many, which is why we are determined to do everything we can to put more money in people’s pockets.[Official Report, 5 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 2MC.]

Stephen Timms: Will the Minister give way?

Sarah Newton: Let me make these points. I have been asked to address a lot of issues, and I really want to do that.
As well as the poverty figures, the Department for Work and Pensions publishes impact assessments for every new policy that carefully consider the potential impact of those policies on people with protected characteristics, in line with its legal obligations and its strong commitment to promoting fairness. The DWP has a continual and broad programme of research and evaluation of policies affecting disabled people, which is often contracted to independent research bodies, and all the findings are published. A recent example of such work is the research into the experience of PIP claimants, which was published in September and provided valuable insight into how PIP is working to inform policy development.
We have had some appalling misuse of statistics tonight. Of all the people who have applied for PIP, 9% have gone to appeal and 4% have been overturned. I work with a great number of colleagues in this House, with the Select Committees, with the all-party parliamentary groups, with disabled people and with those who represent disabled people. When we hear recommendations on how we can improve the process, we implement them. The Work and Pensions Committee did an extremely valuable piece of work on assessments for ESA and PIP, and we are delivering on implementing those recommendations.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), who is a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, spoke about the video recording of PIP assessments. I am determined to see that happen, because it will restore a lot of confidence in the process. We spent the summer carefully speaking to people with disabilities and to those who undertake the assessments—let us not forget that they are fully qualified healthcare professionals—about video recording. Putting all that information together, we started live testing the video recording of PIP assessments only a few weeks ago. That work will be completed in the new year, and we will be able to report back to the Select Committee and to the House on our progress and on how we will roll it out.
We are also undertaking a huge, large-scale test—it is actually the largest randomised control trial of its kind in the western world—as well as research into the employment and support package, to look at all the things that work to enable people with disabilities who want to work to get into work. It was interesting to listen to the personal experiences of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), and there are many disabled people who want to work but face unacceptable barriers to work, although we have made a lot of progress.
The latest data from the ONS shows that 900,000 more people are in work over the last five years, which is a steady increase in the employment rate from 43% to 51%, but we are very ambitious and want to see that gap close completely so that employers can draw on all the talents of the nation. We have set ourselves the goal of having 1 million more disabled people in work, on which we are making good progress.
Not only are we helping those people who can work into work, but we are always looking at what more we can do to improve our main health and disability-related benefits. Let us be absolutely clear that we are spending record sums on those benefits—over £50 billion this year, which is much larger than our defence budget. The figure has grown by more than £5.4 billion since 2010, and it is forecast to rise in every single year of this Parliament. All those benefits that are about the additional costs of disability were not frozen and were not part of the benefits cap, and include payments for carers, so it is simply not true to say, as Members have this evening, that we have been reducing the amount of money that we spend on the social security system.

Stephen Timms: Professor Alston produced a punchy report, and it made some telling points. He referred to
“the dramatic decline in the fortunes of the least well off in this country.”
He added:
“The Government has remained determinedly in a state of denial.”
From what the Minister is saying, it seems she is confirming Professor Alston’s point. There has, has there not, been a dramatic decline in the fortunes of the least well-off?

Sarah Newton: I was very pleased when the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth opened this debate by saying that she is an evidence-based policymaker, because I am too. I spent time serving on the Science and Technology Committee, where I was instrumental in having social science brought into its purview, and I was on the board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. It is very important to me to make sure we use statistics, data and research accurately, and I am quoting from independent, impartial information.
As I said, one person in poverty is one too many, but let us not forget that we have had to deal with the legacy we were left by the previous Government of “There is no money”. We have had to make difficult choices about public expenditure, but we made sure that we increased the amount of money for people with disabilities and we increased money for the NHS. That extra money going into the NHS is directly benefiting people with health conditions and disability.
I have little time to wind up, but I want to mention that we have talked about other barriers that people face to fulfilling their aspiration to play a full part in our society, on which I completely agree. Employment is really important. All of us will be going back to our constituencies. We will do some Christmas shopping, go to carol services and enjoy a panto—we will be doing things with our families—but so many disabled people in our country will not be able to do that. We are absolutely determined through what we do with our sector champions and on our inter-ministerial working groups to make sure that every disabled person in our society can play their full part. We are removing those barriers. We are absolutely committed to living up to all the UN standards that we have signed up to, which are certain to make positive differences and changes.

Debbie Abrahams: Again, let me thank the Backbench Business Committee and all contributors to the debate, who have been fantastic, highlighting what is happening in their constituencies up and down the country. I also wish to thank the thousands of people who have been in contact with me over the past months and days. I thank the disability people’s organisations—WOW, Disabled People Against Cuts, Disability Inclusion and the many charities that have provided their briefings, including the Centre for Welfare Reform, which said that such a cumulative impact assessment would be possible. Given that the Treasury accepts the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s cumulative impact assessment modelling, it seems bizarre that the Minister is saying that it cannot happen. I am conscious that if I do not finish before 9.36 pm, we cannot have a vote on this motion. So, once again, I ask us all to remember the stories we have discussed this evening as we leave to go on our Christmas breaks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to commission an independent assessment of the cumulative impact of changes to the social security system on sick and disabled people and their families and carers.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Remedial) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 July, be approved.
That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 November, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Rail Fares: Cheltenham and London

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Alex Chalk: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have called this debate on rail fares between Cheltenham and London because when it comes to rail travel, my constituents are not being treated fairly. Local people, simply because they live where I and my constituents do, are being charged more per mile for their train travel to London than others who live a similar distance from the capital. It is an injustice that stretches back decades and it needs to be put right.
Cheltenham is around 90 miles or so from London. Because Dr Beeching, in his wisdom, pulled up the more direct line through Andoversford, the train line itself is a little lengthier because it travels a more circuitous route, but the central point remains: it is not terribly far from London at all. It is a substantial town, with more than 110,000 people. It is larger than Basingstoke, Chelmsford, Maidstone and Worcester. It is the home of GCHQ and GE Aviation—certainly if we include Bishops Cleeve. It is the home of Spirax-Sarco and Superdry. It hosts the world famous Cheltenham jump racing festival, the renowned literature, jazz, and science festivals, and much more besides. When it comes to train use, Cheltenham is by far the busiest station in Gloucestershire. Data from the Office of Rail Regulation shows that 2.35 million passengers used the station in 2016-17—almost as many as all the other stations on the route combined, and twice as many as 10 years ago.
Despite all that, there is a glaring discrepancy when it comes to the price of tickets, and season tickets in particular. Take, for example, Kingham to London, which is admittedly a shorter distance, but not much shorter. The season ticket price is £7,124. What about Bath Spa to London, which is further than Cheltenham to London? The season ticket price is £8,064. A season ticket for Bristol Temple Meads to London is £8,244, and a season ticket for Worcester to London is £8,400, yet a season ticket for Cheltenham to London Paddington is £10,344. To make the point absolutely clear: were someone to go way further than Cheltenham, down to Exeter, which is a similarly sized town, the distance from London is 202 miles, which is approximately double the distance to Cheltenham. The season ticket for Exeter to London is £9,788. In other words, it is around £500 cheaper than the Cheltenham season ticket. How can that possibly be fair?
What rubs salt into the wounds is that the service is not as good as it should be. First, there is a systemic problem: it is too slow overall. I see the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) nodding his head in agreement. Let me put that into some kind of perspective: the journey from Bristol to London takes around an hour and 43 minutes, and from Exeter, which as I said is around double the distance, it takes two hours and two minutes to get to London, yet the shortest journey from Cheltenham takes longer still than that. On average, it takes two hours and 16 minutes.
The first problem, then, is that it is too slow, which is galling because there was a time when Cheltenham had the fastest train service anywhere in the country—the  Cheltenham Flyer was the fastest train in the land. The second problem is that there are too many delays and cancellations. On Saturday 4 August, five services were cancelled because a train manager was not available.
What is the impact of all this? Put bluntly, the impact in my constituency is modal shift, which is a technical way of saying that people get in their cars. So many of my constituents drive to Kemble, Kingham, Swindon, Oxford, or even all the way to London. My constituents express frustration at the fact that they are forced to do so and at the fact that that has an unhelpful impact on the environment and air quality. Other concerns are expressed about businesses being restricted from developing and expanding in the way that they otherwise might have done. I posted on social media about this issue, and businesses in Eagle Tower in the centre of Cheltenham said that they are unable to recruit in the way that they might otherwise do or to expand their businesses.
This issue is also important because Cheltenham has plans for a cyber-park, which I have been passionate about since 2014 and which has made really crucial steps forward in recent months. The Department for Transport has committed £22 million in transport infrastructure improvements. The Department for International Trade is promoting the park at international conferences and so on. The park will succeed, but its ability to do so will be immeasurably enhanced if we can have an affordable and good rail connection with London.

David Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Considering that we are talking about the Stroud Valleys line, which goes to Cheltenham, I have a vested interest in this matter. On fares, when I had to travel to Gloucester last week, I found to my shock that it cost an extra £10 either way. That may well be what happens from where I live in Stonehouse, and yet that is exactly the same cost of just getting a train from Stonehouse to London. In other words, the company is charging a person the same when they are on the train as they would do if they were getting on the train for the shorter journey. That cannot be right or fair. Effectively, it is charging the punter more than it should. Does he agree?

Alex Chalk: I do agree, yes. There are two aspects to the pricing perversity that that helpful intervention discloses. First, the line itself is more expensive than similar lines. Secondly, there can be perversities within the line itself, which is an inequity for local people. In the interests of balance, it is important to note that there are some really important and good things taking place. Nationally, I commend the fact that the Government are continuing with an ambitious programme of investment. That is £48 billion over the next five years. The DFT is in the process of moving from Delay Repay 30 to Delay Repay 15, which is more justice for consumers. In Gloucestershire, the redoubling of the Kemble to Swindon line is a hugely positive infrastructure improvement. There are impending timetable changes and new faster trains, so we will be getting a direct hourly sub-two hour service to London in 2019. That is all great. It is also great that Cheltenham is getting an additional 70 surface car parking spaces, taking capacity to at least 320 spaces. That is investment worth £700,000 going into Cheltenham, so that is also good news, and there is further investment  to come. I am not standing here and saying that, somehow, we should turn the clock back. I do not believe in renationalisation. I am just about old enough to remember British Rail, and it was absolutely terrible. The fact is that, since privatisation, a huge amount of money has been invested in our railways and passenger numbers have soared.
It is not enough to say that renationalisation would be a terrible backward step. It is not enough to say that it would cost the taxpayer, not save them money. It is true that it would reduce investment, not increase it, and innovation would be stifled, not encouraged and so on. However, simply rejecting renationalisation is not enough. The market needs to be forced to act fairly. Private companies have a responsibility to the public, and a particular responsibility where the public is a captive market, and cannot take their custom elsewhere, as is the case on the railways. The provider must operate within a framework that ensures that that monopoly position is not abused and customers are treated fairly. It is fair to say that, in these circumstances, it is not acting as it should. In a debate on 15 October—so, not very long ago—the then rail Minister referred to “historical anomalies”. He also stated:
“No one could defend the current fares system”.—[Official Report, 15 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 476.]
He was absolutely right, and I really welcomed that frank admission. One issue is that monopoly power on certain lines distorts pricing. For example, if we look at Grantham, which is also around 100 miles from London, we see that there are three franchises competing to provide a service. A season ticket from Grantham is around £3,000 a year less. Equally, if we look at Crewe, where there are two operators, it is only £500 a year more, despite being 170 miles from London, so a considerable distance further. The issue of whether there is a single operator or more providers can make a big difference as well.
This issue must be fixed. I am aware that the Government have commissioned the Rail Delivery Group’s “Easier Fares” consultation, and are considering that. I am also aware that, on 11 October, the Secretary of State launched a “root and branch review of the rail industry”. In his words, he said:
“It is vital that this review leaves no stone unturned and makes bold recommendations for the future.”
I warmly welcome that, but one of those stones needs to be marked “Cheltenham”. We are not asking for special treatment, but we are asking for fair treatment. For the sake of my constituents and the future of the town I represent, that cannot come soon enough.

Andrew Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He is a great champion for Cheltenham, and all things in and around it, as we have just heard. He is most certainly a great campaigner on rail issues for Cheltenham, as I have found very early in my time in this role, and as my predecessors are all too aware.
My hon. Friend made reference to the fact that passenger numbers in Cheltenham have grown recently. Indeed, in the last 20 years and a bit more, passenger numbers have doubled on our rail network; it is a fantastic thing. The Government and franchise train operators have made significant investment in services  and the network to cope with the challenge of this significant increase in use. It is also fair to say that there are many issues to resolve, one of which is fares and value for money. I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend regarding the fares between Cheltenham and London, as well as those raised by passengers around the whole wider issue of rail fares.
I should just explain where we are on this matter and put the issue into context. Fare revenue is vital in the day-to-day running of our railway operations and the massive upgrade programme to which my hon. Friend referred and which is taking place all around the country. Of course, that is all focused on benefiting passengers. We know that any increase in rail fares may affect the budgets of working people and their families, and we want passengers to know that they are getting value for money. As a Government, we want to help people to keep more of their own money, which is why we have increased the personal allowance and frozen fuel duty and so on. In the world of rail, that means that, since 2014, the Government have ensured that increases to regulated rail fares have been restricted to inflation only. Indeed, 2019 will be the sixth year running in which fare increases have been capped in this way.
I am aware that it might sometimes seem that the fares offered for sale on our railways are always expensive, but there are many very cheap fares offered for travel, especially if people are able to book in advance. For example, it is possible to purchase an advance standard single fare from Cheltenham Spa to London from as little as £14.50. We want to continue to ensure that passengers feel the benefits of fare availability that suits them, and we want them to have access to affordable fares. That is why we are exploring how to link fare increases to the more commonly used consumer prices index measure of inflation in the future. At the moment, it is linked with the retail prices index. To be sustainable, income and costs to the rail industry have to change in parallel. Linking fare increases to the CPI without parallel changes in the cost base would simply mean higher costs to taxpayers year on year. The Secretary of State would like to work together with the rail industry, the Office of Rail and Road, the regulator, the unions and the Rail Delivery Group to ensure that the CPI, not the RPI, is used as the basis for industry staff cost deals in the future.

Alex Chalk: I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful response. Does he agree that the review also needs to consider structural discrepancies? Although I take the point about restricting the rate of increase, if in fact that does not address the underlying structural discrepancy, the perversity and unfairness remain. Does he therefore agree that this needs to be looked at in the round?

Andrew Jones: Basically, yes I do; indeed, I am coming to that point.
What I am trying to get across is that, as an industry as a whole—with industry colleagues—we can keep the sector as efficient as possible, continue the income through the farebox and plough that back in to make our rail network even better, with investment in infrastructure and rolling stock.
As my hon. Friend highlighted, my predecessor did indeed acknowledge that the fare system is in need of thorough reform, and my priorities are no different  at all. I am a regular rail user, of course, and I understand that there can be anomalies in the fare system that can feel unfair to passengers, and we must explore changes to remedy this situation. There can be perverse pricing on our network and we are going to tackle that.
The Williams rail review that was announced by the Government earlier this year will take a root-and-branch look at the system, including considering how the railway can offer good value fares for passengers while keeping costs down for taxpayers. The RDG and Transport Focus recently ran the Easier Fares consultation, which closed in September, where they asked passengers to give their thoughts on how fares could be improved. My Department is looking forward to seeing the results. I met the RDG yesterday and it told me that it would publish the results of its consultation early next year. Both the Williams review and the results of the Easier Fares consultation will support discussions on reforming the fares system to better deliver improvements for passengers. I want to see simpler, more easily understood fares. As my hon. Friend knows, we committed in our manifesto to review rail ticketing and to remove the complexity and perversity that we see in pricing. This is indeed the root-and-branch review that he mentioned.
Together we can help to improve the service that passengers receive on our trains. We are working closely with the industry to deliver a better offer to passengers who travel on fewer than five days per week. Work patterns are changing—we can recognise that and see it all around us—and rail ticketing has to become more flexible to allow part-time workers access to more cost-efficient fares. We will seek proposals from Great Western Railway, as part of its direct award, on how it might be possible to introduce more flexible products while of course ensuring that they are affordable and represent value for money for taxpayers too. This has not yet had quite as much publicity as it might. As well as working with industry to improve the quality of the rolling stock and the infrastructure, we want the industry to introduce initiatives that both benefit passengers and bring about growth in rail travel.
The RDG has announced the introduction of a 26 to 30-year-olds’ railcard that will reduce the cost of rail travel for young people by up to a third on certain tickets. This will be rolled out nationally from 2 January. We welcome this initiative—I am sure that everyone would—as we believe that it will improve opportunities for young people through making travel more affordable and increase social mobility. My hon. Friend mentioned his worry that the cost of rail travel can be discouraging for economic activity in terms of people visiting his constituency. I hope that the introduction of this railcard, as announced by the industry and the Chancellor, will help them and be welcomed by my hon. Friend and others.
Cheltenham Spa is a fantastic place; I know it very well, actually. It has regular services to and from Birmingham, Bristol and London, with services operated by Great Western Railway and CrossCountry. To support improvements to the amenities of the station itself, a masterplan for the station has been promoted, with the local authority playing a leading role. My hon. Friend mentioned increased car parking. Additional car parking is a key element within the planned package of improvements, with a new multi-storey car park planned.[Official Report, 8 January 2019, Vol. 652, c. 4MC.] These improvements are strongly supported by Great  Western Railway. They also include easier pedestrian access, extra bicycle storage, and a more user-friendly bus interchange. The improvements will accommodate growing demand, particularly once the improved London services are introduced using brand new Intercity Express trains. There is a significant amount of investment to make changes to benefit his constituents.
One point that is raised repeatedly by colleagues is work that is taking place across the network to make it more accessible. We have a Victorian infrastructure, of course, and successive Governments have, over many years, run a programme called Access for All that is about making stations more accessible for people who may struggle with mobility. Everybody benefits from that, because it could just be about managing luggage, having an easier route, or travelling with little ones in pushchairs. Lots of people will benefit. We are continuing that work. There is a £300 million budget for the expansion of Access for All in control period 6, which starts next year.
Design work is currently taking place to create a new, accessible route to Cheltenham Spa station under that programme. Work to begin installing the new accessible route is planned to start next autumn and will include the installation of lifts to all platforms, to help passengers gain access to their platforms more easily. That is very positive news, and I hope it will be recognised and welcomed in Cheltenham.
My hon. Friend referenced the new rolling stock. GWR has supported the station improvements and introduced new Intercity Express trains on its network, supporting better services for passengers. It is replacing old British Rail-era trains. That seems a long time ago; my hon. Friend said he could just about remember it, but I remember it clearly. Those new bi-mode trains are a vast improvement. They are cleaner running, faster, more spacious, offer a significantly more pleasant experience and are more efficient to run. The new trains are already entering service, and each one delivers more capacity, with 76 more seats available for passengers. However, the work does not cease there. Once those trains are introduced, passengers will continue to see improved journey times and greater reliability. Maintaining operators’  ability to invest in our railways is a crucial part of the ongoing development of both the Cheltenham to London route and Cheltenham Spa station.
I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) for their contributions to the debate. We will continue to look at ways of both improving services and keeping the cost to passengers as low as possible, while maintaining value for money for taxpayers. The case for reform is strong—we have recognised that and agree with it. The question is how we take it forward.
While specific details of the Williams review are expected next year, many of the concerns shared by my hon. Friend and his constituents will be addressed by that review. The review has launched its call for evidence, which is an important step in its initial phase, and the review team hopes to hear from a wide range of stakeholders across the country. I encourage constituents to get in touch with the team and make any contributions that they feel are relevant. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s speech is sent to Mr Williams for consideration.
Next year, we will see more improvements to the service that passengers from Cheltenham receive—new, faster trains with a greater capacity continuing to be introduced, improvements to Cheltenham Spa station and further development of the station’s accessibility under the Access for All programme.
We will also have a longer-term review of our rail industry, which has been such a success over the last 20 years. It has gone from nationalisation and decline to privatisation, with 1 billion more passenger journeys a year—a huge growth—but is it structured as well as it should be for the next phase of its life? That is the question that Mr Williams has to answer. It is a great opportunity to ask broader questions, including about the Department’s role in the industry. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s points are considered and that the rail review includes fares, to make them simpler and nimbler and eliminate any perversity, so that we encourage more people on to our railways, including those from Cheltenham.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Exiting The European Union  (Financial Services)

That the draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 307, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Exiting The European Union (Companies)

That the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 305, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.